And that's your Catch-22 right there. Just because you, I, or anyone else likes a 3rd party candidate doesn't make them a viable candidate, no matter how badly we want it to be so. You can't just declare someone as being viable, they actually have to be viable in the first place. What makes them viable, is viable widespread support. They won't get viable widespread support until they are a viable candidate, and they aren't a viable candidate unless they have viable widespread support.
Sorry, but I don't agree - what you have stated is a false premise. Further, it assumes that the candidate in question, the one both you and I are referring to - Ron Paul - didn't have widespread support - there is much evidence to the contrary in fact, but first let's review the terms we are using to properly frame the argument, so that we are both on the same page:
Dictionary.com defines viable as follows:
5
"practicable; workable"
6
"having the ability to grow, expand, develop, etc."
and Merriam Webster defines viable, particularly as regards a politically candidacy, as follows:
3 c (1)
"having a reasonable chance of succeeding"
Of course, nowhere in any of the above definitions does it state success is absolutely guaranteed. But using any of the above definitions as a measure, Ron Paul was a viable candidate.
One must understand that in the case of Ron Paul what actually happened was the voters, at least many of them, were quite open to his message, which largely revolved around the idea of a
Pax Americana in it's original sense, which itself had stemmed from the
Monroe Doctrine which in essence held that other countries (European, at the time) ought not be meddling in our affairs (or the affairs of newly independent countries in the Western Hemisphere) and we ought not be meddling in theirs. Extrapolate that to the entire world, and not just Europe, and you get the following:
The general idea was freedom, peace and security, and willingness for liberal trade with any and all.
Dr. Paul's message was, and more importantly,
is, very appealing for many Americans across a broad political spectrum: it is against foreign meddling, adventurism and needless war, is for free trade, limited government, sound money, and low taxes (hey, what's not to like ?)
If one were to survey or poll the above, in an unbiased and unstacked manner, I'm quite sure that you would find that it
is the position of the majority of Americans.
One practical measure of how broadly appealing it was, was the fact that Ron Paul set a record for single day fund raising, largely from small donations -
outstripping both the Democrat and Republican parties, with their well-oiled fundraising machines. This fact speaks volumes, and should not be minimized, taken lightly, or discounted.
Another measure would be the amount of support that he received from both people who identified themselves as either Republican or Democrat, not to mention Independent (similar to Perot)
Care to guess how many Republicans voted for Obama in the last election ?
Or how many Democrats voted for McCain ?
Third is the level of support that he got from young voters. That an "old" guy like Dr. Paul was hugely popular with the college crowd is a bit of oddity on the onehand, but really on the other, it truly wasn't - because it was never about his personality,
it was about the ideas he espoused
Those are just three quick ones off the top of my head, and doesn't include any specific polling data or other evidence. As I recall, there were points where Dr. Paul polled relatively high - considering that he had no big-monied special interests backing him, or the party machine - to the point that it surprised many (and probably scared the bejeebers out of a bunch in the political estabilishment)
One can only wonder what numbers he might have had, had the media been fair and allowed him to get out his message, rather than attempting to portray him as out of the mainstream and distort his political views.
So what happened - why didn't Paul win ?
That's fairly easy - there are entrenched interests - in the political sphere, these are known as the Republican and Democratic parties - but there are others outside of just the political parties who had much to lose as well. These interests had no doubt whatsoever that Paul, while running as a nominally Republican, was not part of the normal political establishment. Therefore, the parties sought to minimize and exclude Dr. Paul in just about any way they could.
And the relatively
weak-minded bought into the argument that he was "unelectable" and that voting for him was a "wasted vote" .... yup - nothing like the two Parties keeping them voters
"pregnant and barefoot, down on the farm" ....
(This is almost repeat of what happened with Perot in '92 - polling suggested that
had people voted their conscience for who they felt was the best candidate, he would have won - although Perot admittedly shot himself in the foot - something Ron Paul did not do during his campaign - by withdrawing and then re-entering the election. Of course had Perot won, it would have been very interesting indeed ...)
Several fairly egregious examples of the media treatment that Dr. Paul were the derisive treatment from Sean Hannity (just another hack media celebrity, and not a journalist - nor a true conservative - in any sense of the word), (Republican) pollster Frank Lund (who isn't an honest broker, and gets paid to deliver "certain" results), and Carl Cameron and Chris Wallace of Faux News. My regard for these individuals is somewhere south of lawyers and other similar bottom-dwelling scum - mainly because they sought to portray things
as they were not, thereby depriving the American voter of making an informed choice. They let their own personal political agendas get in the way of the duty they purported to have as journalists. With Lund and Hannity I wasn't really surprised ... as I have viewed them as celeb hacks for some time (Hannity is about on the same level as say a Keith Olberman ... but nowhere near as intelligent, or as witty).... but Chris Wallace and Carl Cameron .... wow .... I had no idea. No doubt they were just doing the bidding of their masters .....
(FWIW, my own personal taste in political talking heads is more along the lines of Lou Dobbs, Brit Hume, Glenn Beck, and Mike Church. While they all no doubt have their own political bent, they at least appear to me to make an effort to be somewhat sane and rational. And I think they attempt to be "honest brokers" .... of course, Mike Church is .... different .... more of an entertainer. As well as the four mentioned previously (Hannity, Lund, Wallace, and Cameron), Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, Andrew Wilkow, Joe Scarborough, and Rush Limberger, to name but a few are among those that fall into the class that I (not-so) affectionately call the
"mainstream media morons" - they do little to further serious debate of the issues of the day, often focus on the trivial, and mainly appeal to emotion, and not reason or rationality)
Dr. Paul's own party sought to exclude him from some of the debates, and was partially successful, and the other party acquiesced - that in itself ought to tell you something - these jokers are essentially conspiring to limit your choices, and that's not because they are
"looking out for you" - but simply because they are looking out for themselves, and others they are beholden to.
What most folks fail to realize (Layoutshooter being one exception) is that generally, whether you are voting for a Republican, or a Democrat, you are voting for the same thing. While things have been set up to make it
appear to the voters as though there are some differences, there really aren't any on a functional level - you get the same crap with either of them: less freedom, and less money in your pocket ..... and more money in theirs.
In one sense, while Ron Paul didn't win the Presidency, he did in fact win - think about it: today, his name (and more importantly his principles) are known to a far greater degree than they ever were ..... not just here in the US, but throughout the world.
He started the
Campaign for Liberty (<--- click on the link) to continue to expand and carry on the work he has been doing as an elected representative and statesman for a good part of his adult life, and get more folks started in grassroots political activism. This isn't limited to just the United States either - C4L has groups in many countries all over the world - promoting Paul's core values - which are ostensibly traditional American values, the values of The Founders. If that isn't evidence for "widespread support" of the ideas he espouses I surely don't know what is.
This is how we ought to be exporting "liberty and democracy" .... quietly, peacefully, with education and understanding .... rather than at the point of a bayonet, or the barrel of a gun.
The only way this country, and we as a (formerly) free people, have a prayer of a chance, is if we take back our governement - and I can tell ya with absolute certainty, that the path to that does not go thru either the Republican or the Democratic Parties, as things presently exist.
If one wants to understand exactly who it was you didn't vote for, and who you didn't elect, please take 10 minutes and view the following YouTube video, which details just some of what I was talking about in regards to the mainstream media.
And please take note of the dates of some of Dr. Paul's predictions (Note: Peter Schiff is the former Economic Adviser to the Ron Paul for President campaign)
Ron Paul Predicts
One can only hope that folks having voted, can now be happy with the consequences which are about to come, as a result of that vote. Let me tell ya:
.... you ain't seen nothin' yet ......
