While an inherent problem for third parties, there are ways around it. However, look at many third parties and you see a party for the extreme of one side or the other that end up splitting the vote (such as the 1912 election did for Republicans). I still stand by saying that one way to try to circumvent the inherent problem for the Libertarian Party is to work on getting Congressmen that are proud to be Libertarian, rather than the way Paul is Republican. Is it fully the third party’s fault? No, but they aren’t totally innocent by blaming the system. While I know many of the ideas of the Libertarian Party, that is only because I actively sought them out. They didn’t have a high profile Senator or Representative that people could point to and say, “See, Rep. X is Libertarian. See how he votes?”

By the way, I think I was mistaken a little. From what I have read on the Libertarian Party website, there are state officials winning as Libertarian. In this way, the Libertarians are starting to get name recognition. I still think the emphasis is too much on national rather than on the local or district level.

Another thing that Fred G. Sanford has in common with the neo-cons is I think he once said, “Do unto others before they can do it unto you.”

that’s not really the 3rd party’s fault. It’s an inhernet problem in our voting system. Without proportional representation 3rd parties are doomed only to play spoiler. In such a political system, two parties isn’t really much better than one party.

Just as with anger, it’s the personalization of power that’s the problem. Yes, a Congressman may have power, but personally abusing it is wrong. Some Republicans are abusing power to exclude Paul from future debates.

The national republican party leadership has been infiltrated by religious fascists and they are the ones that should be kicked out. They are parasites with a stated goal of undermining the US Constitution and creating a theocracy. (Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and others in front of witnesses and on tape).

The reason they needed to take over the Republican party instead of starting their own is because 80% of American’s don’t want their crazy self-fulfilling apocalypse. So they lie, cheat and steal all the while claiming it’s for the ‘greater good’ but I must have missed the 11th commandment that said the ends justifies the means.

The problem isn’t the money, it’s the power. Take away the power, and nobody will be willing to spend money to gain influence, because that influence won’t get them anything useful.

I think the neo Republican party, like Fred Sanford, has its hands up around its heart right now. Ron Paul is like one of those kids toys that just exploded worms all the neo-cons’ faces.

This ties in with the problems with third-party candidates. All too often, they represent a split in one party and end up giving the election to the other party. Because of that fear, best shown in the 1912 election, many Republicans and Democrats will not vote third-party, even if they don’t agree with the party platform.

Also, remember that until the 12th Amendment in 1804, everybody ran against each other leading to a tie between Jefferson and Burr in 1800, even though Burr was “supposed” to be Vice President. This led to having a ticket of two candidates, one for Pres. and one for Vice, helping bring in party politics. Then again, perhaps the greatest impediments to a third-party are the different ballot requirements. Having to obtain signatures just to get on the general ballot forces third-parties to jump through a hoop the Democrats and Republicans don’t have to face.

For example, why is a natural and very effective sweetner from Brazil rejected by the FDA in favor of dangerous and otherwise unhealthy sweetners–is it eimply that these are more politically correct (i.e. much more profitable to industry)? Of course, that is the answer!

I don’t think Ron Paul is corrupt–he does not have any money.

Love,
His District

George Washington was appalled by party politics, and spent much of his Farewell Address upon leaving the Presidency warning the American people against what he saw as a very great threat: “I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.”

The Founding Fathers were certainly alive and still influential during the rise of party politics. George Washington’s address may have helped hold party strength down for a while, but as can be seen from the current party system, only for so long…

http://www.allthingsreform.org/2007/05/our-nation-is-better-served-with-open.html

A pragmatic republican reason to not kick him out of the party would be to avoid splitting the vote between libertarian/republican supporters come the election. If the neocons truly have so much support, then they should put the money where their mouth is now, to avoid completely losing out come 2008. However, kicking him out of the debates would certainly get him a lot less media coverage at this time, and it’s always in the big parties interest to control the media coverage.

It’s too bad that our founding fathers didn’t realize what a mess a two-party system would become with mass media, and opt for a voting system more conducive to multiple parties (i.e. a yes/no vote for each candidate running (think about what the candidates’ strategies would have to become).