And Then There Were Three
By Robert Ringer - Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Thank heaven … er, Heaven … for Tim Tebow. I don’t know how long his Mile High Miracle will last, but it’s sure a nice break from an extraordinarily non-newsworthy Republican presidential primary race. The media have taken to scraping the bottom of the political barrel for pork rinds that can be recycled as artificial news stories.
The latest artificial story manufactured by the media is about Mitt Romney’s offer to bet Rick Perry $10,000 that he was wrong about the facts when he accused him of saying, in his book, that he supported an individual mandate for federal healthcare. The problem? It made Romney sound too rich. After all, if he were just riff or raff, he would have bet $10 instead of $10,000.
Wow, what a story! Down with the rich! Bring out the guillotine! Who cares about solving the nation’s economic problems? And you wonder why most people don’t pay any attention to politics?
Fortunately, the worst is almost over. We’re basically down to four Republican candidates, so a lot of things are going to clear up after Iowa.
I say four, because, (1) apparently taking a cue from Mark Sanford, Huntsman has gone for a long hike in the Bryce Canyon National Park in Utah; (2) Rick Perry, however well-meaning he may be, proved again last Saturday that he simply can’t complete an intelligible sentence; (3) Michele Bachmann continues to distract from her considerable bank of knowledge and outstanding verbal skills by not being able to resist the temptation to preface her sentences with “When I’m president …”; and (4) people just don’t seem to like Rick Santorum (though I should add that if Santorum ends up debating New Gingrich one on one in a Trump-moderated Newsmax debate on December 27, he would have the opportunity to pull off a real coup).
That leaves the two most flawed candidates in the field, along with the best candidate, to battle it out. The two most flawed candidates I’m referring to, for all the reasons with which you are already familiar, are Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. How sad that the Republican selection process has once again given its base a lesser-of-two-evils choice.
The best candidate, of course, is Ron Paul. Notwithstanding what his detractors say to the contrary, Paul is by far the most honest, most consistent, most knowledgeable, and most fiscally responsible candidate in the field. But unless he can win Iowa and finish at least second or third in New Hampshire and South Carolina, we may be looking at a serious third-party challenge to the Demopublican election charade.
The going wisdom is that a Paul third-party candidacy would hand the election to Barack Obama, but I’m not altogether certain of that. To be sure, the odds would favor Obama, but it would be fascinating to see how many independents and anti-war Democrats Paul could win over.
Right now, a Ron Paul third-party candidacy is just a dream — a nice dream, to be sure — but if it happened, it could change American politics forever. Why? Because people would finally have a legitimate choice other than Democratic-style progressivism and Republican-style progressivism. Many voters are tired of choosing between death by firing squad and death by hanging.
Living — and living freely — might just be an irresistible choice for many Americans.
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2012 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.
To sign up for his one-of-a-kind, pro-liberty e-letter, A Voice of Sanity, Click Here.
Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints. Make your case passionately, but please keep your comments civil and to the point (150 words or less). Obscene, profane, abusive, or off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.
If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion. Thanks for your participation.
43 Responses to “And Then There Were Three”
Leave a Reply
1500 characters maximum.
“but if it happened, it could change American politics forever.” Of course; by handing the Presidency to BO, er, Mr. Sotero, that is, the “Obamao”… you get the idea… thereby destroying any chance the TRUE “99%” (actually the 52% of us real taxpayers) have of recovering from the first four-year debacle.
Everybody has a lovable crank uncle and Dr. Paul is ours. That doesn’t mean he needs to be President of the USA.
“forever” is wee bit hyperbole, of course (jefferson was pres, that didn’t change things forever…).
but referring to paul as a crank is truly mechanical nonsense. as in “open the pod door, hal…”
It was rather amusing watching Mitt for Brains thrust out his hand to Tricky Perry; however, I must agree with RJR that that reality-TV-moment was just another dimwitted soundbite. Donald Trumpery would have loved to moderate that one, because dimwitted soundbites are appealing to his dimwitted audiences.
I for one, will remain just one if I have to, and not vote for anybody accept for Ron Paul. I’ve finished lowering my standards; this means that anybody who is less of a libertarian than Ron Paul is unacceptable. If anything, I’m going to perfect my standards so that when I’m shoveled into my grave I can take with me all that really matters: a measure of integrity.
All the other champion can-kickers can go straight to hell.
Not vote for anybody *except* for Ron Paul.
Ron Paul and his Ronuluns are nut cases. He is wrong on the Federal Reserve, he has not done the homework on that issue at all, for his Fed replacement plan to work Gold would have to go to like $11,000,000 a Oz. And we don’t eat. It is a system and it can be changed but it needs to be changed from the bottom up. As in lets replace Obama who is of little consideration the mandate is to clear Obama, end Obamacare, and start the dialog to a new tax system. WE need apply modern technology to clean up the system and it requires a member of that system to do that. Then in 2016 we can elect an real outsider to the office. Any change at all in the next four years beyond the removal of Obama is a gift. I think the lesser of the two evils is Giingrich who will see this as his legacy and might shock us all but he will clean up the core of the system then we shall see. But Obama has to go. And the rest is cannon fodder. Bachmann is the biggest disappointment she had so much promise but “i am a tax attorney” is a lose lose lose.
And the deal makers will all move to the black market; those who are not there yet will be soon. The largest growth industry in the world is the black market …… so say’s EllisEconomics !
< He is wrong on the Federal Reserve
the austrians are correct on fiat, central banking. how many historical examples do you need, anyway?
< WE need apply modern technology to clean up the system and it requires a member of that system to do that.
the 'technocrats' in europe, as well as here, love you for your endorsement. however, "the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house." how many historical examples…oh, forget it, & suffer the doom of repetition.
While it may be true that a ‘gold’ backed monetary system is presently not practical, one backed by the full faith and credit of corrupt politicians is less so, as is proven daily by the messes in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia and both Americas. The simple fact is that fiat currencies always fail and those fully backed by precious metal only fail when gum’mint greed gets involved.
Given the current preference by looters to steal copper, maybe that is our answer. Even fresh water would be preferable to a political hack’s smoke and mirrors.
Third party is but a bus stop on the road to serfdom. No matter how distasteful the RINO nominee, he or she will represent our only hope of taking the next off ramp from the highway to obummertopia. Once the narcisist-in-charge is booted off the island we can set about rebuilding the RINO party into one Thomas Jefferson would be proud to join.
that’s not hope; it’s hopium….
Shame on you GillOTeen for not being a Libertarian purist — 99% just isnt good enough, so under the bus you go, huh ReUnion ?
Ooops
99% of what, stephan? nothing from nothing (leaves nothing), billy preston, is the appropriate song, here……
ReUnions: It’s only appropriate for the appropriate mindset – hmmmmmmmm…
Ooops, plural name > my bad
i see. positivity. we shall overcome. all that. if only enough navel gazers will concentrate, and do a magical vote incantation, the rino’s, and the rest, will change their mind about global empire.
after some number of kicks to the head, you don’t feel it anymore….
Mitt Rommney is a white BO. He is NOT the great “White Hope” his policies would parallel BO’s. So to use a favorite phrase, it doesn’t matter if it’s a white chauffeur or a black chauffeur, we’ll sill be upside down in a fast flowing ditch.
I am surprised and disappointed the Libertarian Party lp.org did not make a push to the TEA Party people to join the Libertarian Party. Rather they did (like usual) nothing and let the social “conservatives” over-run it and cause many to disperse.
If we elected members of congress with balls to stand up and actually defend the constitution no president could get away with what they all have been since people were being thrown in jail for criticizing the president and congress.
dr. no excepted,the players who make it to the nationals do not attain because they have balls. besides, the kennedy double exclamation points were, remain, potent reminders.
“I might consider voting for Ron Paul as a third party candidate if Newt Gingrich is the Republican nominee.” Glenn Beck
That statement by GB tells you everything that you need to know, viz. libertarian fiscal/economic principles are so powerful and so close to reality that they can overcome the great spears leved against them. The dimely-aware masses are being forced to reevaluate their collectivist leaders.
“Anti-interventionism (smeared as “isolationism”) is at the heart of the Old [Gingrich] Right…………..on the domestic front: The libertarian Old Right was born in opposition to Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal. Yet Gingrich has repeatedly emphasized his devotion to FDR (“the greatest figure of the 20th century”), to his statist political program (“the truth is we would have voted for much of it”), and to his legacy (“He did bring us out of the Depression”). Accepting as truth the most damaging anti-capitalist cliche of the century, Gingrich reveals his ignorance of history as well as of economics.” Murray Rothbard.
yes. and the aspect of the isolationist smear that is always conveniently ignored is that the intervention is to be paid for with others – stolen – money. minding one’s own business is good comportment; if one choses to stick one’s nose in, however, it should be on one’s own dime. that it’s not, never is, is again, the 3-card monte of socializing costs/risks, while privatizing gains.
Maybe, Rosie is right Newt should read a history book. The un-employment rate for 1941 was 12.5%. FDR did NOT get us out of the Depression (only Great in the US) but Hirohito got us out of the Great Depression. “This halfof the room is in the Service and the other halfis make stuff for the first half. Hey full employment!!”
Fellows (Bob and RealitySeeker) – - You both are making Obama a shoo-in for another 4 years of destroying the Nation. Can you folks spell P-E-R-O-T? Remember those 7 Million votes he took away and made Clinton who only got 43% of the vote our President for the next 8 years! The old Chinese proverb that the “journey starts with the first step” is truly applicable here….the first step is to defeat Obama. ANY of the current Republicans would do a better job and are better for the Country than Obama. A third Party is a nightmare. Don’t throw away your vote with ANY 3rd Party guy…it is a vote for Obama.
lol…and the 4 years before obama? and the 4 years before those 4 years? etc. have you been in a coma? if so, congrats to be out of it; now, you’ve some catching up to do……
Yes, I remember, Tom. And I repeat, I’m not lowering my standards one inch. It’s Ron Paul or I’ll see you all in hell.
Do you remember Bush 1 and 2?
Remember how G.W. was the biggest spending President in history up until Obama became Spender-in-Chief? Well, G.W. learned how to spend big from his daddy.
Do you remember Ronald Reagan?
The national debt was .9 trillion when Reagan took office and it rose to 2.8 by the time he left office. Reagan was not really a libertarian or even a fiscal conservative. It was he who began the sovereign-debt bubble which true libertarians like Ludwig von Mises predicted would turn into a can-kicking contest. Hence, the 1980′s is when the welfare-warfare state really started to fund itself, big time.
Yes, under Reagan amerika had the largest debt increase in history up until that point in time! Let the can kicking begin! But, hey, it costs money to build the world’s largest army/empire and start the greatest crack-up-boom and bust economy since the Roman empire. Well, shoot, cowboy, did you expect Reagan was really going to end the welfare-warfare state when he started out his presidential campaign by quoting FDR?
Continued:
Ditto with Newt….. Newt is another champion can kicker; however, “Houston there is a problem:” Newt and the rest of the champion can kickers are running out of road. Fast forward from the 80′s to today: The Federal Budget Deficit is over 15 trillion and heading for 16, 17, 18….. and the unfunded liabilities—e.g. SSI— are conservatively estimated at at least 62 trillion and maybe somewhere over 110 trillion. Currently, the Baby-boomers are reaching retirement age at the rate of 10,000 per day for the next two decades. And “Houston,” that’s just some of the insurmountable problems–there are many more. Yes, the end of the road is in sight.
Yes, even the dimly-aware in the Republican party are soon going to have to admit that Rothbard was right, Ludwig von Mises was right, F.A. Hayek was right, Ron Paul was right and now, Glenn Beck is just starting to get it right, too.
If you want to read Rothbards thoughts on Newt, then start here: http://lewrockwell.com/rothbar...
I’m not voting for can-kicking collectivists. They can go straight to hell!
There are two issues I feel are so important that if our chosen leader is not on the right side of both of them, no other issues matter in practicality. First and foremost a candidate would be having the sense to avoid war unless absolutely necessary. World War III might mean the flinging of nukes around and it’s kind of hard to worry about gay rights or even the budget if you glow in the dark. The second issue would be making a budget that actually works and does not just kick the can to the next president until finally we are at the end of the road. Again, we can argue about who ought to get Social Security or whether or not we can afford bases overseas all day but when we just can’t pay, all that is moot.
and putting your feelings into action steps would mean/require dismantling the empire – closing the bases, decommissioning the troops.
I totally oppose decommissioning the military and that is not merely because I am involved with it myself. There is plenty of room in America on bases for the troops and there is plenty of work for them to do here. It is hard to deal with the GOP because lately as some seem to want to depict military members that do not support overseas wars as cowards. I would probably protect any-even the current president with my life if need be but I won’t give up the right to speak my own opinions (which are in NO WAY official military ones; the military has no political view at all). I personally would find the most meaning in my job by going to our border and securing it so our southernmost residents could enjoy the freedom to prosper and keep paying me well.
sorry, brent, but you want to have your cake, and eat it, too. can’t be done.
Reverse the word order, lively freedom may be an irresistable choice for many. But to be free is easier than to live.
I, for one, am tired of having the choice between the fast handbasket and the slower handbasket. The destination is the same.
Who is John Galt?
Where’s the graphic? The (R)ats will nominate the least winable canidate so that they can keep Second Hussein as president.
Although it would be a cliffhanger, I think Ron Paul would have a good shot at winning in 2012, as I think he would appeal to many former Obummerbots.
It could end up a repeat of Ross Perot 92′ election… but maybe…. he could siphon votes from both sides.
This election is going to be extremely important… but I’m at a point where I can’t stomach much of it anymore!
Ron Paul is going to be interviewed by Alex Jones today at 1:30 Texas time……That old “kook” is going to give another great disambiguation of amerika’s future if the collectivists remain in control.
You can Goole Alex Jones and listen to his show for free on the internet.
At the risk of sounding redundant, I want to proffer my two cents (of probable value) into this unending Great Debate on the merits of voting third party.
Strictly speaking from the pragmatic viewpoint, it simply fails the hype it’s given. It should be obvious that a 3rd party has zero chance to win. I should know, I’ve been in this rut for some thirty-odd years now and I’d say I’m coming close to violating that definition of insanity. So why do we keep doing the same thing over & over, knowing “our guy” will never get elected? Because we irrationally believe we are somehow making a strong & possible game-changing political statement, collectively. And it just feels good knowing we did what’s “right and moral”. There’s only one problem. No one’s listening, nor cares — save the other third-party voters. And it assuredly won’t matter in the upcoming election either. Naturally that leads to this attitude: “Then I’ll just not vote — that’ll show-em!” Great — and congratulations! You’ve just now allowed yourself to be painted into that proverbial corner called apathy, exactly where the statists want you to be. They just love it when another competitor drops out. That’s why they do what they do.
The bottom line is we’ve got to start somewhere — but we just can’t seem to get out of the gate. Our first step must be to get rid of Mr. Zero and his lying cronies, then proceed on. Sound like a plan to you?
no, it’s not a plan, it’s a rote (and a self-garrote, too). you said it yourself: 30 years. unless you’re immortal, you passed the insanity threshold a long ways back.
yes, start somewhere; i recommend the beginning (any past inflection point will do, as they are “resets” of the game). see how many iterations, rhymes, you can find. you cannot win any game that was designed with you as rook; furthermore, the game rules are only rigid when it benefits the gamers – when not, they change the rules. and if erasures & rewrites don’t get it done, the muscle is brought in. you are falling prey to the “you can’t win if you don’t play” scam. the lotto grows because dummies play.
if no one voted (thought experiment), what would happen/change? nothing. except the faked legitimacy would be apparent. that would be worthwhile, an actual start. the organism is a thing unto itself…surely you’ve heard of the “continuity” plans? gov’s highest priority is self preservation; impregnable bunkers are stocked, the important names are on a list, and voters/voting haven’t a thing to do with it.
pragmatism is the unsuspected double agent, the mole in your mind. the blackhats know your move before you make it. be still. make them move, without cover.
“you said it yourself: 30 years. unless you’re immortal, you passed the insanity threshold a long ways back.”
Hmmm… Oh, I see… Then by default, you believe in the pure non-voting ethos which, by deduction, must be the only rational & ethical course of action open to the moral individual? I too attended that school for awhile before being kicked out for violating the non-voting rule one too many times. Notwithstanding, I’m still able to stand up & say with conviction, “yes, voting is immoral”. And how is that possible? Under the circumstances it should be obvious. Either one jumps into the mud and start flailing away, trying to help determine the winner of the political brawl, with the hope of victory by the good guys; or stays home, safe and secure, having no say in the matter, knowing you stuck to your guns (“God, I did not vote today”), hoping and praying(?) the lesser evil wins.
For the onlooker, this unfortunate situation now creates labels for both individuals. The first guy may be called a hypocrite, the second a philosophical jellyfish. I just happen to be a bit more comfortable with the former than the latter. So we both understand, are you looking in from the inside or the outside?
BTW, and with full 20/20 hindsight, what was your recommended course of action in lieu of voting for those crazy Libertarians all these years? Just curious.
belief has nothing to do with it, Stephan (sephan?).
voting that forces its product on people who want, take, no part, is co-conspiracy to trespass; immoral, on its face. second error: “good guys”; there are probably such working within the mafia, too (so what?). third error: “lesser of two evils”; at what point, if ever, does this qualify as death by a thousand cuts? (or, is the whole goal just staying alive, as long as possible, no matter what, so that bleeding out slower is default?)
recommended course of action is abstain from trespass (voting – for anybody).
why is it not obvious that even if you could resurrect the entire founding crew, and elect them all into office, it would make no difference whatsoever? especially since that drama has already been played out once before, in the so-called civil war?
the office slots are mere levers, handles, buttons, that voters vie for the right to pick the names for (from a pre selected list), but don’t have any control of. it is hypocrisy, but also inanity.
“philosophical jellyfish” is a straw man you’ve erected to help with your rationalization.
We Americans have only one choice this election. Should we vote to continue the nightmare of high unemployment, endless wars, diminishing individual constitutional rights and a dismal future for our children or do we vote for freedom and individual rights. As far as I’m concerned it Ron Paul or NOTHING!
IOWA: GINGRICH 22% PAUL 21% ROMNEY 16%
“In Iowa, Paul closes to within one point of front-runner Gingrich,” This according to a story just posted on the Drudge report.
And then there three, indeed.
One would think it would be obvious to even the meanest intelligence, that Ron Paul is the only candidate who actually wants not only to stem but to reverse the power of the federal government.One would hope, too, that he would return the country to the isolationism that was characteristic of its most prosperous years – the years with Coolidge.
Neither nations nor individuals have claims on one another. Ideally, all government would be dissolved, and people left free to live as they pleased.
true. That’s what he wants. as do many of us.
in dealing with smooth-tongued adversaries, best not to adopt their power words, like “isolationism”. that word means to convey a slur, & it does, automatically, in many minds. the correct term is “non-intervention”, & the classic support is jefferson’s “peace, commerce, & honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none”, which is firmly rooted in thomas paine’s work, and projected in the monroe doctrine. be ready, however, to counter charges that these ideals have been compromised right along, as they have – which is an indictment of the compromises, and those making the compromises, not the ideal (look where the compromises have led).
your last sentence is critically important, because it goes directly to motive. many here, calling themselves “conservative” have as motive simple return to an earlier time/context. auld lang syne (sentimentality), and time travel, are simplistic, terribly useless motives, and I think a large part of the impasse; motive is “why”, but also “how” – and those two are, have always been, far more important than “what” (it is those two that produces “what”…”what”, correctly understood, is always a side effect, not a direct effect…and what do pragmatists fix upon? direct effects….).
last (again), paul is a good man. one good man. but despite jackson’s assertion, “one man with courage makes a majority”, reality is much different. david vs goliath is a good yarn, and such things do happen, but are exceptions proving the rule. i’ve seen what really happens to david, too many times (and experienced it personally a few times, as well). longshots, underdogs, & “can’t win if you don’t play” need to be kept in perspective, and optimism, which is a bias (a self-serving, seemingly, filter on reality) tightly reined.
Nowhere have I read in this discussion is the real problem, IMO, we have with government spending. It’s the number of people (too much duplication) and what they do (a lot of paper pushing)and what they are paid (sometimes 2x what private sector gets) and what they buy at ridiculous prices ($900 for a Sno-Cone machine or toilet seat). Newt’s suggestion to apply Lean Six Sigma to the budget is interesting (I”ll bet the average DOE employee doesn’t know what that is). Ron Paul says he would cut $1 Trillion from Budget by eliminating several departments. It’s a great idea but he”ll never get it passed. The other major issue with the budget is the BASELINE. It has to be eliminated. Calling a 2% increase vs. a baseline increase of 7% a cut is ludacris. When I was in HS in the 70′s we had one Principal, one Vice-Principal and two Guidance Counselors (Girls and Boys). In my city now, I know of a High School that has SEVEN Vice-Principals and guidance counselors for all grade levels. And the kids are on street corners shlepping candy bars so they can pay for band uniforms and teachers are buying supplies for their kids. Disgraceful! Sure there is plenty of room to blame the NEA but the real culprit here is the FEDS and the DOE. Blank checks will be made out in whatever amount is needed.
Doublemint gum’mint hopium…lol