It's an unfortunate fact that for whatever reason, Americans will not vote in significant numbers for a 3rd party candidate. Forty years of fruitless Libertarian Party activity is proof of this. Forgot about getting people elected to national office. In those forty years how many Libertarian Party candidates have been elected to even local and state offices? How many Libertarian Party dog catchers are out there?

The libertarian agenda has finally found an effective messenger and even prophet in the person of Ron Paul. And he has attracted millions of supporters only because he was allowed to participate in the party nomination debates as a Republican. As much as the MSM had attempted to marginalize his presence in 2008 and 2012, he would have been totally invisible if he campaigned under a 3rd party banner.

Ross Perot received as many votes as he did in 1992 because his message got out to the voters during the presidential debates. A 3rd party run for Ron Paul could be successful but only if he is allowed into the presidential debates. Having learned their lesson with Perot, TPTB will never again allow a 3rd party outsider into those debates. Furthermore, 3rd parties are severely handicapped having to deplete their resources just working to get on the ballot in all 50 states.

Voters have been conditioned for about a century to ignore anyone outside the two party system. Therefore, infiltrating a major party at the grass roots level with young blood, as Ron Paul activists are now doing, is today the only way to eventually implement the libertarian agenda. Demographics are in their favor. The Republican party's statist oldsters will eventually all die off! Infiltration does work. Let's not forget that today's fascist Democratic Party can trace its now toxic bloodlines back to Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party. A Trojan horse strategy can succeed where a 3rd party frontal assault will certainly fail.

Ron Paul's libertarian message, especially this past year, has come very far, and a payoff should be expected. If Romney and his backers seriously want to beat Obama, they must placate the large Ron Paul vote. Campaign promises of any sort will not work with this group. How have his antiwar, pro civil liberties promises served President Obama's betrayed supporters? A cabinet position for Ron, Rand or anyone of their partisans, even if approved by a hostile Senate, is insecure. An independent minded cabinet member can be fired at the whim of the President. The only acceptable concession to the Ron Paul swing vote is a libertarian as Romney's running mate. Fear of his libertarian VP dropping out and then losing to Obama when the Ron Paul voters sit out the election, would in itself have a moderating influence on Romney's campaign rhetoric.

True, once in office the VP officially has little to no power, yet it still would be the highest profile platform to date from which libertarian ideas can be loudly communicated and for at least four years. Furthermore, what can a President do to shut up a VP who speaks out against administration policy? He can't fire the VP as he can an appointed official. A thorn-in-the-side, loud mouth, dissenting, VP would truly be a political freak who would, for that reason, garner lots of media attention which is exactly what we want for libertarian ideas. It's not the presidency, but do libertarians really want to go back to ineffectively wandering around in the political wilderness waiting for a 3rd party messiah?

A VP who repeatedly condemns unconstitutional administration policies could even have a moderating influence on those policies. Americans and their MSM love spectacles. What can be a bigger spectacle than a VP Ron or Rand leading a protest march on the White House! Would President Romney even be tempted to trigger such embarrassing insider opposition to his administration?

So, with all this in mind, I don't think that a VP slot for either Ron or Rand would be the betrayal of liberty that many libertarians fear. Handled skillfully, together with the grass roots infiltration of the Republican Party by Ron Paul partisans, it can represent a major move forward for libertarianism and a springboard for a libertarian President in 2016.

The decision is up to Romney and his handlers. Politicians are notorious for their short time horizons. Do Republicans want to win so badly in November that they would allow a Trojan horse to help them do so?

Low on vitamin B perhaps.

If a prankster rang your doorbell, leaving a smouldering bag of poo on your doorstep, would you:
(a) create/join/vote a political party,
(b) create a global administration for grade-A cretins to abuse,
(c) clean it up yourself?

If you peel back the layers of deceit, have 'they' actually improved anything ever, if so at what real cost?

Where is the case for continued Trust in these entities and their poorly-operated meme-plastique modes?

I had difficulties to finish reading this nonsense. Ron Holland wants to stay in GOP. God forbid, Ron Holland and him-alike will end up being outside of the Zionist Banking Mafia controlled political party.

Ron Holland has a dream of transforming GOP into a free and democratic political institution responsible to American people instead of the present Zionist Mafia.

I am just wonder what is he smocking lately?

Of course, Ron Holland is right on... again. However, I would be shocked if Ron or Rand Paul are included in a Romney administration. Why? Because, the PTB don't need to take that risk. They get what they want, with either Romney or Obama. Why would they put themselves at risk? They won't.

You are right on when you advise against a third party. Given the history of such efforts in the last century, it is a useless effort. Everything is stacked against it. Washington's pols don't have to say a thing, they just have the IRS take the problem in hand.

The Tea Partiers are getting it in spades now and they are not a party except for specific action. Their success in calling attention to the depravity of both major parties, electing rebels to Congress and other lesser posts, has rattled the American political establishment and now they are being harassed with legalities and demands for all records available, from the IRS... it is the same tactic used against Perot or any successful candidate not under the prescribed banner of the GOP and the Dems.

The only way things will change here is for youth to move within the parties and "take over". It is what the Goldwaterites did, and what the Obamaites are doing now. They do not wear their hearts on their sleeves but become "good soldiers" and then their talents can place them where they can change directions. It was called "Fifth Column" in the Thirties and throughout WWII!

Ron Paul has ignited something that can grow but he is not able to lead it... .he waited too long!

Good article.

The independent votes for a third party president are there.

The money, organization, and foot soldiers to get names on ballots in all states and run continuous interference for candidates isn't.

Perot proved it could be done. With his funds, organizational ability, 30-minute infomercials with charts, and runners going out to all states from a Dallas headquarters, he and the polls left Clinton and Bush-the-first in the dust at the starting gate.

That's why they told him to drop out ". . .so we can get these crazy voters back under control." IMO.

Debbie Medina proved that voter anger and dissatisfaction were still there a couple decades later.

Medina recall was the third-person in the last Hutchinson-Perry Republican governor's primary in Texas. She was closing fast on Hutchinson, and Perry was already looking over his shoulder at this grim-campaign-reaper-from-Nowhereville about to put a torch to his presidential aspirations just from the strength of her truthful, common sense, debate victories over two talking Chameleons.

Oz, sensing a possible upset, had to arrange a quick "Rick Perry For President" interview with Glen Beck, then tap Beck a day or two later to blind-side Medina with the standard pre-demonization-tin-hat long distance phone call ". . .do you believe 9/11 was a conspiracy?"

She answered: ". . .I believe there are some unanswered questions. . ."

Or words to that effect.

The canned, coordinated, orchestrated media chorus was deafening.

The irony about Beck's call is there are irrefutable, carefully researched, foot-noted books by David Ray Griffin and other authors that calmly explain why the government's explanation about 9/11 cannot be true. Click to view link

The first third party candidate that points that out and sticks to his/her guns will, IMO, be in for a voter block surprise.

In the interim, any third party allowed to emerge will be there to bleed votes only, and will be controlled by Oz.

Mavericks need not apply.

All other potential third party candidates will be kept inside the demo-repub facade; also for control.

The media silence about Ron Paul's truths during the debates and his primary wins was deafening.

But. . .the people heard and listened as the article correctly pointed out.

National-state-local organizations, funds, platform, plan. . .it's all required for the run.

Ad Hoc meetings and demos won't cut it.

BHO, America's current political Kabuki, seems to have learned his lines well. Telepromters have lessened. His funds grow magically. Goldman Sachs advises.

Oz has unfinished business he needs to quickly attend to lest he become stranded and steamrolled on the Internet superhighway.

It's going to be close.

Any influence Ron Paul will have on the Republican Party will be in direct proportion to whether the neocons, who are the David Rockefeller and friends arm of the party and who are in control of it for them, think they can win without Ron Paul support.

I find it interesting that there is no way to enter feedback to the Republican Party from us peons (which would be simple to do on their website). They don't care what we think about anything as long as they get our votes. To do that, they only need to be a little less statist than the opposition. Ron Paul supporters must effectively threaten the Republicans with no support if Ron Paul and his message is rejected by them, or all is in vain. Maybe a letter writing campaign (to the chairman of the Republican Party)?

Welcome to the Long Haul, Folks. I expect RP will provide us leadership in this issue, as that is what leaders do. There is no such thing as bad leadership, only the lack of it. I will support his decisions in this. We must accept we do not walk the halls he does. Too often I read people making calls that they are not qualified to make. We simply do not know the whole truth. It is why we rely on people to honor this sacred trust, this heart, of the republican system. You are all the smartest Americans I ever hoped to meet. This will prevail.

I agree with Ron Holland -- a third party run would be fruitless. It's easy for Republicrats to saddle a third party effort as out of touch with mainstream thinking.

There seem to be two viable non-violent ways out of the oppressive democratic prison the US public now endures. One is to take it back by taking over one of the two political parties, winning elections and demanding adherance to the Constitution -- Ron Paul's approach. The second is for entities like states and municipalities to opt out or nullify (under 10th Amendment protection) the national political process until it reforms.

Both efforts have strong movements underway at present. It may take a few more elections cycles, but one of these approaches (maybe both) has a good chance of taking hold, as citizens continue seeing the futility of continuing the same old way.

The failings of democracy has no solution. History (formal and alternative) explains. The original government founders of the Usa weren't attempting to create a democracy. That's just how it's turned out. A Republic was the goal that was hijacked by techocrats from corporatism known for power lawers writing legislation favoring there interests not civil interests. Just need to connect the dots.

Any efforts to sustain the democracy supports the pretenders of patriots running America now and since the civil war era. Generations of manipulated education has challenged my parenting skills, today to educate between the lines for my children's future to begin learning truths early... .so no tooth fairy or Santa, but who doesn't grow out of that anyway; mostly with resentment for withholding the truth.

... sorry this reply was @budwood... .oops!

I think that Ron Holland is correct here in his analysis that infiltrating and rebuilding the Republican Party from within is the best means available to advance a libertarian agenda. The Libertarian Party's 40 year history of wandering around almost unnoticed in the political wilderness demonstrates that third parties, at least for now, simply have no meaningful future in America. However, existing political parties can morph over the decades into something unrecognizable. One can scarcely believe that today's frighteningly statist Democratic Party can trace its roots back to the Democratic-Republican Party of Thomas Jefferson! It wasn't until the administration of Woodrow Wilson that the Democratic Party fully repudiated peace, liberty and free markets. So if a political party can be corrupted from within, perhaps it can also be detoxified from within and made palatable from a libertarian point of view, especially if on occasion it already flashes rhetorical adherence to libertarian principles.

The only fool proof concession that Romney can offer libertarians for their vote would be a VP slot for either Ron or Rand. Promises of cabinet level or judicial appointments for Ron Paul partisans, even if honored by President Romney, can be rejected by a Senate hostile to libertarians. All other promises to Ron Paul and the libertarian wing of the Republican Party for a smaller, kinder and gentler federal government can easily be discarded by Romney once in office. Let's not forget that Obama, the constitutional scholar, ran as an antiwar and pro civil liberties candidate only to betray those voters for whom these issues were important.

It's a given that Romney is unlikely to win in November without the Ron Paul vote. However with a libertarian running mate, Romney would have to moderate his pro state biases during the campaign otherwise the running mate could drop out of the race, Romney would lose the libertarian Paul vote and hence the election which he so badly wants to win.

True, once in office the VP officially has little to no power, yet it still is a high profile platform from which libertarian ideas can be communicated for at least four years. Furthermore, what can a President do to shut up a VP who speaks out against administration policy? He can't fire the VP as he can an appointed official. A thorn-in-the-side, loud mouth, dissenting, VP would truly be a political freak who would, for that reason, garner lots of media attention which is exactly what we want for libertarian ideas.

A VP who repeatedly condemns unconstitutional administration policies could even have a moderating influence on those policies. I can just imagine the spectacle of a VP Ron or Rand filling a football stadium with angry Americans eager to hear him denounce plans for war with Iran and then afterward leading a protest march on the White House! Would President Romney even be tempted to trigger such embarrassing insider opposition to his administration?

So, with all this in mind, I don't think that a VP slot for either Ron or Rand would be the betrayal of liberty that many libertarians fear. Handled skillfully, it can represent a major move forward for libertarianism and a springboard for a libertarian President in 2016.

Very nice, Ron, but voting is not any solution to the failings of democracy.

Such a waste. So much energy, time and money to elect the next sock puppet of financial sociopaths. But this is nothing new. I've just finished the little book of "How To Win An Election: An Ancient Guide for Modern Politicians." It's a translation of the advice Quintus Tullius Cicero wrote to Marcus Cicero in 64 B.C. Marcus did win, and folks haven't learned much since.

As I've written here many times, if only folks would select one of their own from each congressional district to serve one year, never to serve again, your House of Representatives or the House of Commons would truly express the meaning of those words. There would easily be a simple majority of non-sociopaths that would read the legislation first, and then vote with common sense; if nothing else, for their own self-interest. Until that happens, rinse and repeat; suffer the consequences of sociopathic "leadership" just as we have for centuries. At least since 64 B.C.

I like Justin Raimondo, but I agree with Holland here. I won't vote for any GOP candidate but Paul... however I prefer Paul keep fighting the GOP from within. The media coverage in 2008 realy helped wake me up and I suspect the media coverage and obvious voter fraud this time around woke up even more people. We keep forcing them to show their true colors and the game becomes more obvious to a certain percentage of the population.

I'll probably vote LP in the election(hopefully it won't be an obvious CIA drug warrior like Bob Barr).