Press Conference 09/2008

7 Responses




On September 10, 2008 Ron Paul held a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington D.C.

He released the following Statement to the Nation:

“The coverage of the presidential election is designed to be a grand distraction. This is not new, but this year, it’s more so than ever.

Pretending that a true difference exists between the two major candidates is a charade of great proportion. Many who help to perpetuate this myth are frequently unaware of what they are doing and believe that significant differences actually do exist. Indeed, on small points there is the appearance of a difference. The real issues, however, are buried in a barrage of miscellaneous nonsense and endless pontifications by robotic pundits hired to perpetuate the myth of a campaign of substance.

The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice. The real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues.

Influential forces, the media, the government, the privileged corporations and moneyed interests see to it that both parties’ candidates are acceptable, regardless of the outcome, since they will still be in charge. It’s been that way for a long time. George Wallace was not the first to recognize that there’s “not a dime’s worth of difference” between the two parties. There is, though, a difference between the two major candidates and the candidates on third-party tickets and those running as independents.

The two parties and their candidates have no real disagreements on foreign policy, monetary policy, privacy issues, or the welfare state. They both are willing to abuse the Rule of Law and ignore constitutional restraint on Executive Powers. Neither major party champions free markets and private-property ownership.

Those candidates who represent actual change or disagreement with the status quo are held in check by the two major parties in power, making it very difficult to compete in the pretend democratic process. This is done by making it difficult for third-party candidates to get on the ballots, enter into the debates, raise money, avoid being marginalized, or get fair or actual coverage. A rare celebrity or a wealthy individual can, to a degree, overcome these difficulties.

The system we have today allows a President to be elected by as little as 32% of the American people, with half of those merely voting for the “lesser of two evils”. Therefore, as little as 16% actually vote for a president. No wonder when things go wrong, anger explodes. A recent poll shows that 60% of the American people are not happy with the two major candidates this year.

This system is driven by the conviction that only a major party candidate can win. Voters become convinced that any other vote is a “wasted” vote. It’s time for that conclusion to be challenged and to recognize that the only way not to waste one’s vote is to reject the two establishment candidates and join the majority, once called silent, and allow the voices of the people to be heard.

We cannot expect withdrawal of troops from Iraq or the Middle East with either of the two major candidates. Expect continued involvement in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Georgia. Neither hints of a non-interventionist foreign policy. Do not expect to hear the rejection of the policy of supporting the American world empire. There will be no emphasis on protecting privacy and civil liberties and the constant surveillance of the American people. Do not expect any serious attempt to curtail the rapidly expanding national debt. And certainly, there will be no hint of addressing the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationship with big banks and international corporations and the politicians.

There is only one way that these issues can get the attention they deserve: the silent majority must become the vocal majority.

This message can be sent to our leaders by not participating in the Great Distraction – the quadrennial campaign and election of an American President without a choice. Just think of how much of an edge a Vice President has in this process, and he or she is picked by a single person – the party’s nominee. This was never intended by the Constitution.

Since a principled non-voter sends a message, we must count them and recognize the message they are sending as well. The non-voters need to hold their own “election” by starting a “League of Non-voters” and explain their principled reasons for opting out of this charade of the presidential elective process. They just might get a bigger membership than anyone would guess.

Write-in votes should not be discouraged, but the electoral officials must be held accountable and make sure the votes are counted. But one must not be naïve and believe that under today’s circumstances one has a chance of accomplishing much by a write-in campaign.

The strongest message can be sent by rejecting the two-party system, which in reality is a one-party system with no possible chance for the changes to occur which are necessary to solve our economic and foreign policy problems. This can be accomplished by voting for one of the non-establishment principled candidates – Baldwin, Barr, McKinney, Nader, and possibly others. (listed alphabetically)

Yes, these individuals do have strong philosophic disagreements on various issues, but they all stand for challenging the status quo – those special interest who control our federal government. And because of this, on the big issues of war, civil liberties, deficits, and the Federal Reserve they have much in common. People will waste their vote in voting for the lesser of two evils. That can’t be stopped overnight, but for us to have an impact we must maximize the total votes of those rejecting the two major candidates.

For me, though, my advice – for what it’s worth – is to vote! Reject the two candidates who demand perpetuation of the status quo and pick one of the alternatives that you have the greatest affinity to, based on the other issues.

A huge vote for those running on principle will be a lot more valuable by sending a message that we’ve had enough and want real change than wasting one’s vote on a supposed lesser of two evils.”

Ron Paul was joined by third party candidates Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader who issued the following joint statement and agreement:

We Agree

Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.

Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.

The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.

The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.

Watch the complete press conference below:

Later the same day, Ron Paul and Ralph Nader appeared on Wolf Blitzer’s CNN Situation Room:


7 responses to “Press Conference 09/2008”

  1. mike

    the green and libertarian parties could feasably fuse their two causes together. In basic principle, libertarians state that individuals are guaranteed absolute freedom so long as they dont infringe upon the liberties of others.

    The argument has been made by green minded libertarians for years that pollution, habitat destruction, and globabl warming is clearly such an infringment upon an entire society’s freedom to enjoy clean air, nature, etc… Of course one must permit minimal emissions, however, a libertarian would never endorse unrestricted dumping of hazardous material, unlimited emisions, or habitat destruction especially cases where it visibly causes harm/distress for others.

    The real crime, as pointed out by Ron Paul is the current solutions being offered by the Democratic’s “green” sympathy. Corperations and industry are allowed credits and limitations which can be traded great idea right? Wrong. If the group goes over their limit they are merely taxed as a means of penalization. Ron Paul alikens this scenario to a thief stealing from your home and taxing his haul to atone for the misconduct. A real sham.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. Mary White

    Notfrom PA, but from Kansas via Texas, New Jersey, and Arkansas. McCain’s pro vote on the “bail-out” was the deciding factor for me. I will vote third party.

    Mary White

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. Kyle Schlett

    Ditto Noah’s sentiments. I know there are significant differences among these parties, but I would be willing to swallow some of my dogma for now and vote from the issues identified in the above joint-statement. In addition to the summary effect of third-party percentages (in the 10-12% range in many states), I think a consolidated effort could attract many of the 60% of disaffected voters and potentially change the political landscape for a long time.

    The thing is, if someone blows out candles and cuts a cake alone, that’s just sad. If a whole bunch of friends are over, that’s a party! What I’m still trying to find out is who’s hosting this party. (I already have my pointy hat!)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. tim fry

    MARY WHITE from PA? YES: this is correct
    TLF

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. Mary White

    Until primaries in the major parties result in choosing the candidate who truly wins by using preferential balloting, we will continue to have voters holding their noses as they enter the election booth.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Noah Tilsen

    Why haven’t these parties formed a coalition? Right now I’d vote for ANYONE whose principles follow that joint statement made. If the Green Party and the Libertarian party could come together and set aside their differences for a greater good, the presidential race would be much more interesting. I suppose the hard question is who’s gonna run.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. Nader McKinney

    Dr Ron & Ralph

    “The two parties should be
    almost identical, so that
    the American people can
    ‘throw the rascals out’
    at any election without
    leading to any profound or
    extensive shifts in policy.”
    - Carol Quigley

    Cynthia Mike Dennis Jesse Ross Jimmy

    And the men* who hold high places
    Must be the ones who start
    To mold a new reality
    Closer to the heart

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0