Just to clarify, for anyone who was wondering -- this is no longer "winner takes all." Instead you send money to your candidate of choice now.

They still need pledges to participate over at http://www.thirdpartyticket.com/. So let's get those candidates some publicity! (And while we're at it, let's show the public which third-party candidate has the most support!)

You can pledge here: http://www.thirdpartyticket.com/
And remember to watch the debate on Sunday October 19th, 2008 from 7pm to 9pm EST!
(And tell others about it too!)

I'm not sure the candidates have agreed to participate yet. There are links to persuade them on that same site. We are the driving force for this -- let's get that momentum rolling!

It would send a powerful message if you got the League of Women Voters to support the debates. They used to sponsor the debates, before the CPD, and they let third party candidates like John Anderson in. They have been very disapproving of the CPD in the past.

Dr Ron Paul could have Obama for lunch, on the economic problems and the war
and everything else. Things are moving so fast, now is the time (48 hrs) for
Dr. Ron Paul to appear in Fridays debate and save this country.....
McCain says he isn't going to be there. What a awesome time for anther
Republican to appear on the scene?

Just a thought...

Please come on Dr. Paul.... pretty please?

Some thoughts about the money bomb contest --

Many in the liberty movement seem reluctant to financially support a to-be-determined candidate (winner-take-all), and would therefore not participate. These would unfortunately be those who feel most strongly about which candidate to support, while this method would leave their opinions uncounted.

Also, we may want to rally behind the candidate with the greatest number of supporters rather than with the supporters giving the most money. (I can see this being argued either way, but my own preference would be to see numbers of supporters rather than numbers of dollars for this. We do need to raise money though.)

So here are a couple thoughts.

One idea would be to just take a poll to see which third-party candidate has the most support. This gives one vote per person (among BTM members), and would give everyone a sense of what the community is thinking. (It might also be interesting to tally up both positive and negative ratings for each option.)

Another idea is to change the "winner-takes-all" part of the money bomb contest. Instead of all the money going to the winner, it could go toward debates between the candidates. We can probably agree to support that!

Or the contest could let participants specify where their money will go, while counting the amount as being for their candidate of choice. (There could be an option to send the contribution to the winner of the contest, and another option to send it only to the chosen candidate.) This would show us more completely where the greatest support is among the candidates, while allowing participants to choose where to put their money.

I think my vote would be to fund a third-party debate for now, and maybe try a winner-take-all contest after the movement is more familiar with the candidates.

Edit: I just noticed Ron Paul's endorsement of Baldwin! I take back the winner-take-all part. I say those of us who either favor Baldwin or favor a united vote should support Baldwin at this point, and should continue to respectfully work together with other liberty-minded third-party supporters.

There is a new moneybomb for Chuck Baldwin this Friday the 26th www.buckforchuck.com

we had a small one last week and we will do another this friday.

This event will also be broadcasted from 9am until midnight on www.revolutionbroadcasting.com

UPDATED : I was asked to add this : Revolutionbroadcasting nor buckforchuck receives 1 penny from this money bomb 100% of all donations go directly to the Chuck Baldwin campaign.

As Ron Paul has thrown his support behind Baldwin, why don't we do the same? I don't think we would alienate any TRUE supporters of liberty by doing so. Baldwin stands with Nader and McKinney on the 4 Issues of Agreement, and departs from them where their platforms are DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO LIBERTY. If BTM has any influence at all, I believe that it can help the most getting behind a candidate that people truly committed to freedom can live with. What do you think?

Tom Mullen

www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God" - Thomas Jefferson

Constitution Party: Chuck Baldwin for President 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt3ql_1AUmk

I can't see why all the criticism. At any rate I recall the 5th of November website and the small soundbites from V. For me that is what first grabbed my interest. When I heard it and read the website I felt very excited that there were people out there who felt like me. It was emotional and it was fantastic. It was and still is exciting to be a part of your crowd.
There were hundreds of videos on youtube with the 1812 overture as the background music, all touting Ron Paul and the independent ideas we all share. That really put momentum together for not only Ron Paul the canditate, but his next money bomb as well.
The people need a rally cry and they need some emotional link to their cause. Right now many people seem depressed and despondent.
Trevor, you and your team could really help us all capitalize on the 5th of November again. Maybe something could bring us all together en masse like it did before.
We need something to hold on to, something to spark inspiration. When we are excited and confident we draw the most attention from those who are on the fence and unsure about not only their vote, but the future of their country as well.

Been off the grid for a few days..., so you'll have to excuse the few days delay in responding.
608 lousy pledges. This is typical of every single clarion call for money bombs of all varieties since Ron Paul dropped out, i.e..., totally insignificant.

Where the hell are those 1 million plus who voted for him in the primaries?

I thought BTM was going to be the avenue; or the hub, if you will, for preserving the momentum of Dr. Paul's campaign. I'm finding it very hard to believe much apathy was "cured" at all.

I am TimSGolf and I approve this message.

The Chuck A Thon is on NOW Chuck Baldwin need money now

To continue what hes doing!!! Go to http://www.Revolutionbroadcasting.com

And listen to Chuck Baldwin and many others NOW also donate up to $2300

To http://www.Baldwin08.com NOW

Chuck Baldwin on the issues: LQQKS GOOD!
http://www.ontheissues.org/Chuck_Baldwin.htm

Mr. Lyman:
I really believe this is ineffectual.

I have always voted for liberty-minded third party candidates, and they have not won a national seat in recent history. If our goal is to elect liberty-minded people to government, we have three options:

1. We can run third party, such as Libertarian or Constitution party. This could also involve uniting into a single third party. For various reasons (media, dualistic thinking, debate control, etc.), this has yet to work. This hasn't even come close to working on the presidential level.

2. We can unite behind an independent candidate. Some examples of Independent success include Ross Perot (not bad) in 1992 and Jesse Ventura (though he was officially in the Reform Party) in 1998. Perhaps Dr. Paul could have had Perot-like success, but, for the reasons listed above, it is still very difficult to break the two-party stranglehold.

3. We can infiltrate the two parties. Both parties. We can focus on winning, above all else, and support liberty-minded Democrats in blue states and liberty-minded Republicans in red states, just as Dr. Paul has done with his seat in Congress. In states like Texas or Idaho, for instance, all we would have to do is win the Republican primary for House or Senate; in states like Oregon or Vermont, the Democratic primaries. This, too, would be challenging, and there will be many failures along the way, but I believe it is the only way we can actually win elections. Think of it this way:
How close did Ron Paul get to winning the presidency in 1988? And how close did he get in 2008?

Please, abandon all third party hope. Following Dr. Paul's example, Break The Matrix and the Campaign for Liberty need to create and support candidates within the major parties.

Why not...

....take the 10,000 or more pledges, then offer to donate an equal portion to each of the three universities/organizations that are sponsoring the presidential debates upon their inclusion of the 4 third party candidates with equal time. Once they agree then the pledges commence with the money bomb. If all three agree, split it 3 ways. If only 2 agree, split it in half. If only one agree's that university/organization gets the whole pot.

If all three reject the offer...

-Use the money to buy ad time during the debates and run seperate ads for each of the 4 candidates. Each candidate could appear in their own ad saying "Hi, I'm so and so. I'm on the ballot in however many states. I really wanted to join the other candidates in tonights debate, but they said the American people are not important enough to hear my ideas. They claim you, the American people, are to confused to have more than 2 choices."

- Use the money to host your own debate on primetime network television. ABC, NBC, or CBS. Even though they'll probably decline the invitation, make sure you invite Obama and McCain to participate. Don't want to stoop to their level you know.

Trevor,

I believe in your concept. Let's move onward.

Cheers,
Christina Tobin
National Coordinator

*We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately. - Benjamin Franklin

Hawkeye, the true individualist who never abandons his principles.
I really like Jim's idea of urging voters to decline the top of the ticket and just vote locally. Don't you just wish you could go into the booth and write in Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, or Sponge Bob for president rather than these bozos. It happened when Pat Paulson, a commedian on the Smother's Brothers show, conducted a write in. And then there was Eugene McCarthy, the Ron Paul of the 1968 election. So we got Ross Perot who scared the two parties with 15% of the vote, and Teddy Roosevelt of the Bull Moose party (who actually won) to look to for our inspiration. For those of us who want to express our distaste for the candidates in the"one" party system in this election we have to think creatively. How can we get our voice heard? The idea of forging a message that can be heard far a wide that we are angry and we won't take it anymore, outside of sticking our heads out of our collective windows and shouting it to the deaf and dumb populace, is to offer a challenge to have them listen to our silence. The money bomb idea could work this way; Trevor could set up a site where the money bomb on a certain day will be a 2 cent donation, as in "I am putting in my 2 cents worth" to show the "one" party system that I am fed up and I won't take it anymore. You couldn't donate any more than 2 cents. The accumulated 2 cents worth would represent a deafening silence to the media and others that we, the independent voter, will be a force in this election if we can stand behind a leader who has the guts to challenge them. He has to be someone like James Stewart in Mr. Smith goes to Washington, or Davey Crocket, who can stand before the assembled congress and tell them where they can all go. I liken this to the movie Seabiscuit. We could be the crowds who put our bets on Seabiscuit, the underdog challenger to the high and mighty rich and elite, our hopes riding on a pure faith that he will win. All the big money is going the other way so our odds of winning are 100 to 1. What a tremendous achievement it would be if, low and behold, Seabiscuit wins and we hold in our hands something more precious than a winning ticket. The challenger hasn't really won; we are the ones who have won the race by having the faith it could be done. We are the ones who can look at our country and know we have done the right thing.

I want to make it clear that attribution for the wonderful idea of national anti-McBama ads goes to bigdstocktrader in his post below. Wish I'd thought of it first. I also lilked DavidS's remarks. I, too, am a DownsizeDC.org member, and I'd like to second David's commendation of them to readers of this blog.
Best to all,
Elliott

I share the opinion of the several posters who express skepticism concerning the ability of any of the third-party candidates to attract broad support by themselves. And in any case, one of the of the basic strengths of the Ron Paul campaign has been the intention of its supporters to vote their principles--how can we abandon that idea in good conscience?

The one idea that I DO like is a money bomb to support national ads that run against McBama. In fact, I _love_ that idea. We all agree that the rigged two-party "system" is our common enemy. So why not do our united best simply to undermine it--get the population at large so disillusioned and mad that they're forced to seek alternatives, as we have.

We're so used to being nickle-and-dimed to death, that maybe we forget that incrementalism can work for us. No alternative candidate is going to actually win the election, so what difference does it make how those alternative votes are distributed? If third-parties and write-ins got a collective 20% of the vote this time around, think of the impact!

To be successful in the present context, all we have to do is create legitimacy for the _idea_ of voting third party (that is, voting one's principles) in the minds of the general public. If we can create a climate that encourages people to vote their principles, rather than their fear, then we have created the conditions for future victory.

ARE YOU NUCKING FUTS?

I guess I am, too.
'Winner takes all' is a bet that would pride and PAD the coffers of the Mafia, in Vegas.

You HAVE RON PAUL, and the others, as well as the machine known as McBama.

A preacher from Florida, who probably LOVES Palin; a flip-flopper 'Libertarian' who voted FOR PATRIOT, funding for the undeclared war on Iraq, and an employee of the CIA from '71 to '79', Ralph Nader (need I say MORE?); McCain; Obama; et.al., AD NAUSEUM.

This site wants to 'pool the money' from these 'independents' (OF WHOM, CONGRESSMAN PAUL IS THE ONLY TRUE INDEPENDENT!), and 'give it' in a crap-shoot, to Lib Commie McKinney, Nader, Baldwin, or the guy with glasses, Barr.

All or nothing, double-up, c'mon baby, we need a new pair of shoes---

Dr. Paul has seen fit to message us all that we are SCREWED. Don't you get it YET? His statements are basically that WE are going in to a totalitian World Order, so choose your 'lifeboat', because THIS nation is DONE?

I am STILL voting for Ron Paul, and stand by my decision, for good or ill (and ILL is what we are getting!).
Aimee Allen was spectacular, in Washington D.C., and in Minneapolis, as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3l0sBNBQBk

HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN SO SOON?
MontgomeryScott
MadmiralKurt
Curt
Dad