The Stage: Valentine’s Day, 2001. I am a high school senior, I do not have a valentine, and I have oddly colored hair. I do not like society or its make believe holidays
The Victim: A decorated ‘Happy Valentine’s Day’ banner and the 900 or so cohabitants of the cafeteria during the lunch period.
With there being increasing evidence that [tag]Ron Paul[/tag] is shifting from his Republican Presidential campaign to his reelection campaign for the [tag]House of Representatives[/tag] — essentially dropping out of the Presidential race — the question becomes what to do with all the energy, effort, and money behind Mr. Paul’s spirited run. While I did not agree with a lot of his platform, he showed he was a viable, sincere candidate and, unlike other ‘outsider’ or [tag]independent candidates[/tag] (Nader in 2004 or 2000, Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, Dennis Kucinich), he proved that he could combine [tag]grassroots support[/tag], galvanize several cross-sections of the population, and have significant fund raising capability. Though it appears he has ruled out running as a third party candidate for the 2008 Presidential election, his campaign shows that there is a tremendous opportunity to establish another [tag]national political party[/tag] in America (and if anything has been made clear by the internal treatment of Paul, Kucinich, and Gravel by the Republican and Democratic party, it’s that the parties want nothing to do with them or public discussions on dissent and policy disagreements).
The question then becomes what could be the basis of a [tag]new third party[/tag] in our current political system?
• Politically, individuals with high political capital would form the basis for the parties ‘national’ identity. These would include marginalized but formerly popular party politicians like Ron Paul, [tag]Dennis Kucinich[/tag], [tag]Mike Gravel[/tag], Pat Buchanan, former Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords, and former Rhode Island senator Lincoln Chafee, and prominent independent politicians such as [tag]Ralph Nader[/tag], Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and Jesse Ventura. Though they may not share much on social or economic agendas, they do share a commonality towards reform on the issue that has dominated the political landscape for the past 7 years and yet has seen the least actualized transformation: [tag]foreign policy[/tag]. Both parties, with only minor differences, want to continue sending billions of dollars a year to Middle Eastern dictators, financially and militarily aiding Israel, prolonging military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, abating a non-diplomatic, hawkish stance towards Iran, and pursuing the War on Terror through the any-means-necessary dictum, including torture, civilian monitoring and spying, and the refutation of signed international treaties on justice and prisoner of war treatment. Within this lays a tremendous gap on policy pursued and policy desired; most Americans have rejected the Bush administrations foreign policy agenda, which will only be tweaked, not overhauled, if Hillary Clinton or John McCain were to be elected.
• Though there may be disagreements on how the American government spends money domestically, there can be tremendous agreement that some elements of government spending must be changed or curtailed. Like foreign policy, the realistic difference between [tag]Democratic[/tag] and [tag]Republican party[/tag] is minimal: both are guilty of passing the current federal budget (created by our ‘fiscal conservative’ President, George Bush), which has pushed the government deficit to record highs. Indeed, both parties are guilty of abating a reckless federal fiscal policy. This leaves room for a new party with a radically different vision of ‘government’ — one that spends less money overall and shifts money from war-making, war-facilitating, and corporate welfare to investment in American citizens through health care, education, and other domestic programs.
• Monetarily, Ron Paul managed to raise over 30 million dollars over in several quarters. If a new party was to combine the Green, Libertarian, and Reform party, it would have excellent fund raising capability as well as a solid party membership base (remember, Nader won almost 3 percent of the vote in 2000 and in many states won between 5 to 10 percent of the vote). With the money Ron Paul has a raised, viable candidates who present a realistic alternative to Republicans and Democrats could have incredible winning potential for local and Congressional races. Reinvestment of presidential campaign funds by Ron Paul into a new party would be wise as it seems that the Republicans are poised to unseat him in his primary, and such momentum and financial ability should not be squandered on furthering the Republican party’s agenda.
1. I fucking hate the religious right. Want to know why? For shit like this:
Responding to complaints from the Religious Right, Congress has passed legislation mandating that the phrase “In God We Trust” be moved from the edge to the back or front of the new presidential dollar coins.
2. In Soviet Russia… Zebra wear you! And yes, that was the best I could do.
And it’s not Barack Obama or Bill Clinton, it’s John McCain. While it’s starting to appear that McCain has wrapped up the Republican nomination, there has been a noticeable revolt among sectors of the conservative elite against his pending nomination. From the Evangelical right to the anti-Immigrant right, members in and outside of the party have pledged not to vote or support McCain, and Ann Coulter went as far to say she would campaign for Hillary Clinton if she faced John McCain in the general election.
James Dobson: “I am deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, voted for embryonic stem cell research to kill nascent human beings, opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, has little regard for freedom of speech, organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters in judicial hearings, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language.
I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are. He has sounded at times more like a member of the other party. McCain actually considered leaving the GOP caucus in 2001, and approached John Kerry about being Kerry’s running mate in 2004. McCain also said publicly that Hillary Clinton would make a good president. Given these and many other concerns, a spoonful of sugar does NOT make the medicine go down. I cannot, and will not, vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience.
But what a sad and melancholy decision this is for me and many other conservatives. Should Sen. McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime. I certainly can’t vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on their virulently anti-family policy positions. If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life. These decisions are my personal views and do not represent the organization with which I am affiliated. They do reflect my deeply held convictions about the institution of the family, about moral and spiritual beliefs, and about the welfare of our country.”
Ann Coulter: “If he’s our candidate, then Hillary’s going to be our girl, Sean [Hannity], because she’s more conservative than he is. I think she would be stronger on the war of terrorism… I absolutely believe that…… I will campaign for her if it’s McCain.”
Rush Limbaugh: “He is going to reach out to Democrats and he is going to enjoy doing it. This is how he will get even at Republicans for South Carolina in 2000.”
Michelle Malkin: “Peddling open-border extremism… he is somebody who does not believe in borders, does not believe the United States is a sovereign country.”
Pat Buchanan: “Here’s a guy who basically says the jobs are never coming back, the illegals are never going home, but we’re going to have a lot more wars.”
Citizen United Political Victory Fund: “John McCain — Surprisingly Liberal”
Tom Delay: “McCain has done more to hurt the Republican party than any elected official I know”
Laura Ingraham: “The pieces of legislation that John McCain became most famous for are all pieces of legislation that he co-authored with liberals.”
Justin Raimondo in the American Conservative: It is impossible to know what is in McCain’s heart. There may be a purely ideological explanation for his changing viewpoint. But what seems to account for his evolution from realism to hopped-up interventionism is nothing more than sheer ambition. This was the case in 1983, when he defied the Reagan administration over sending U.S. soldiers to die at the hands of a Beirut suicide bomber, and in 1999, when the cry went up to take on Slobodan Milosevic. He was positioning himself against his own party, while staking out a distinctive stance independent of the Democrats. It was, in short, an instance of a presidential candidate maneuvering himself to increase his appeal to the electorate—and, most importantly, the media.
And it’s not only the elites picking at McCain’s conservative credentials, it’s the base as well. A Michigan crowd boos and hisses at John McCain on his immigration position: