Why Ron Paul Will Lose

In the wake of President Obama's bumbling policies related to the economy and the unconstitutional war currently being waged in Libya, many in the Paulist column have come out and openly argued for his election to be the nominee of the Republican Party in next year's critical presidential election. Without delving too much into it, there is some decent evidence that this may in fact be a viable consideration, especially when noting that one poll from Rasmussen showed the Texas congressman trailing Obama by a single percentage point 42-41%. Even when real estate mogul Donald Trump attempted to claim Paul could not win the 2012 race, the latter's supporters launched vitriolic responses across the internet, bashing the whole notion that he would not triumph.

(Photo credit goes to BusinessInsider.com)

Before this I have spoken at length about my disagreements with Mr. Paul on foreign policy in particular, but it would be wrong to solely use this as reason why Trump's assessment is correct. Instead, it is more important to analyze Paul's greatest thorn: the illusion of a national-regional movement.

Anyone understands Paul's history knows he is a prolific fundraiser with a network of support across the nation,  allowing him to raise funds of grandiose proportions in little time, yet this does not make up for the congressman's lack of pluralities in the regional arena. Regardless of how strong one's national visibility may be, without connections in the state committees or trusted presence there, winning a primary is essentially impossible. Mayor Giuliani discovered this in 2008, with his campaign crashing and burning throughout each state's convention as he failed to win over the regional voters. No one would deny Giuliani had a strong national profile, but his familiarity with the state-by-state process was so weak that it destroyed his chances at the nomination.

Beyond the simple issue of local support, the Campaign for Liberty's chairman faces a conundrum when considering the prospects of his fellow vying comrades in the quest for the GOP's banner. The congressman may like to rip them as "establishment picks," yet that exact factor is what will reliably lead to his loss next year. Given the building scenario of Romney-Bachmann-Cain-Palin, it is almost impossible to imagine the good doctor coming up on top without some serious dropouts across the GOP field. Assuming Palin does not run, with both Santorum and Johnson dropping out, Paul still faces a steep climb to cinching the nomination.

Taking Iowa or South Carolina into the discussion it is not hard to see the frustration of Paul's hopes. Given her flamboyant conservative rhetoric, let us speculate that Michele Bachmann wins 34% in Iowa, followed by Romney at 25%, and a third non-Constitutionalist taking about 9%. With these numbers, Paul has already lost a crucial primary that could well decide the two top candidates of the race, even if he manages to grab the remaining 32%.

But this model is flawed in an obvious way: it fails to consider more than three candidates on the ballot other than Paul. In a more liberal state like New Hampshire, Romney would likely win 35%, followed by Huntsman or Perry in the mid twenties and then a non-Paulist candidate with double digits, be it Bachmann or Cain. So even in the best case possible, Paul's chances of winning in such a crowded field are miniscule.

Unfazed by this, Paul's supporters will likely call for an independent or Libertarian Party run, effectively getting their message out there while reelecting Barack Obama to the White House. Even if the GOP nominated a flimsy candidate like Santorum or Pawlenty, the prevalence of the two-party system would cause the chosen Republican to take at least 6% of the vote, enough to return Obama to the Oval Office. Were we to guess that that Paul lone would take 52% of the vote, the inclusion of the GOP third-party would cause him to sink below Obama's popular vote total, likely bringing about his defeat.

Ron Paul may be an honorable man, but he will not win the presidency in 2012. 

Brandon Dawson

National Alliance Vice President for Elections

Europe's Shining Leader

Nicholas Sarkozy is an anomaly. Not in the negative way as first appearances may suggest, but a diversion from the Euro norm which is both refreshing and inspiring in the era of Barack Obama. Though it may not have seemed possible, France once again has a leader in the towering mold of Napoleon; a figure unafraid to embrace greatness and generous with his actions for the good of international stability. He bypasses the simple standards of past leaders, emulating the very legends that many in the modern day have traded for flimsy beliefs in UN-sanctioned peace that will never be actual without the imposition of world power authority.

 (Photo courtesy of TopTenList.com)

In 2012, Sarkozy will be seeking reelection to the French Presidency, and it is in the interest of Europe as a whole that he does not cave or lose that effort. The fragmented Socialist Party of France has put forward Segolene Royal, Sarkozy's opponent in 2007, and Martine Aubry, a far leftist union leader who threatens to dismantle international security with her disastrous views on foreign policy. Further possible is Dominique Strauss-Khan, IMF President and long time economist who offers the only reasonable moderate in the party.

Regardless of who is chosen, the French People would do wise to return Mr. Sarkozy to office, as his policies both domestically and in the foreign realm have been stunning successes deserving an extended mandate for their activation. From his ban on the burqa to his involvement in Libya, he far surpasses the record of even Charles de Gaulle, embodying a man who understands the world and is not petrified by the presence of opposition.

After 12 years with the terrible leadership of Jacques Chirac, France finally has a leader it can be proud of; a man who does not believe his nation should remain on the sidelines despite its seat on the Security Council and general  economic predominance in Europe. Sarkozy has embraced his own new era foreign policy, rejecting the view that France must remain dormant after its back was broken in World War II by implementing reforms which benefit the Euro Zone as a whole and encourage more leadership from its heads of state.


Thus little can be said for the present except this ringing point: Vive la France, et Vive la Sarkozy!



Justin Michaelson

National Alliance Vice President for International Policies

Illinois and Integrity

In what might be called a revolutionary step towards good behavior by the justices of Chicago area courts, Rahm Emanuel was banned from seeking the office of mayor even after his organized attempt at rooting out Democratic opposition both electorally and in the judiciary. After a long period of decadent corruption in the city and general region, citizens across the U.S. may begin to see a real change in the manner that the state pursues business.

The former chief of staff will hopefully be denied a change in ballot names by the Illinois Supreme Court, an occurrence which would likely sink his bid for office altogether and make a political comeback difficult at best. Emanuel's no nonsense behavior has given him a reputation as one with little respect for the rules which restrict his own advancement, but finally those tenets have come to bring him down at his finest hour.

It is still viable that Emanuel will fight the ruling and attempt to win a reversal in superior courts,yet the likelihood of his success even as the ballots are now being printed is extremely slim. The zeal which surrounds the man will be lessened when he crashes to defeat in several weeks. A write-in campaign has also been deemed mostly irrelevant, as his timing would need such precision and mobilization that at this point it is entirely worthless for consideration.

Regardless of what may come next for the slick president's man, he has just suffered the blow which may come to eclipse the remains of his vicious and unrelenting political career. By the time the office opens up again, he will be helplessly outnumbered by the more prestigious guns of the Democrats--as well as the incumbent mayor, creating a quagmire of dramatic proportions that promises to make his future political life problematic.

Illinois may remain a hotbed of political corruption and criminal activities, but the prevention of Emanuel from seeking the office of mayor is a small turn of effort to redeem the state from its past grievances. Wrong has been struck a deft yet firm blow; it only remains to be seen what more shall come of it.



Andrew Rimmer

National Alliance Vice President for Communications

Democracy Prevails: Southern Sudan

For nearly seventy years, international bodies tried without significant avail to reach a peaceful discourse between the northern and southern regions of Sudan, yet in 2005, a movement towards the right solution finally took flight. Although not a push for unity, the measure has culminated into the secessionist election of this present week, which for all intents and purposes looks set to result in a new southern province.

Southern Sudan has shown the world that oppression can be overcome by the people, though sadly without even the slightest inclusion of much UN action, which has become commonplace in these areas of genocide and abuse. Fusing activism and governmental principles, the people of the strongly African state have managed to prove their own tenacity in overthrowing the Arab-controlled north, according to most reports.

In a strong promise of democratic rule, the region's executive, Salva Mayardit, has pledged to be an open and free ruler of the new country who will tolerate almost all self-expression by its citizens. The region's oil may also become a valuable source of its economy, potentially overpowering the less resource-laden north by means of its control.

Steps still remain to the country's penultimate freedom however, as a six month program of negotiations must first take place before the new country becomes fully recognized by international bodies. Both sides will need to decide how to fairly split the remaining oil fields and who will control most of the new nation's foreign affairs. These further milestones need to be reached carefully and without angering one side so that the current hate is permanently engendered between the two ethnic and geographic groups.

The international world should join with the southern province in celebrating the new activities and developments achieved by sacrificial decisions by so many citizens over the past three generations in particular. Sudan has accomplished an admirable victory against the forces of overwhelming corruption who sadly infest much of the world in the present day.

America has much to look forward to, so today is the time to welcome this new country into the world as a strong ally for democracy.

Ayla Samadi

National Alliance Vice President for Domestic Affairs

How to Win Maryland

(This article is from an adjunct writer who does not forcibly represent the views of the National Alliance Foundation)


With deficits, soaring taxes, party corruption, and a sweeping wave year, it's genuinely shocking to some that Robert Ehrlich Jr. failed to pull it off in the Old Line State for 2010. Honestly though, the reality is more clear than even the most defeated GOP members would like to admit in the present day. Republicans in Maryland have failed to build true coalitions, instead leaning on pockets of temporary success while avoiding the grim reality that their vision is faulty, and their methods demeaning to the standards of the province's government friendly citizens.

Ehrlich won a fairly impressive victory in 2002, though his results are somewhat murky; he ran against an unpopular governor who divorced his wife to marry a young aide, as a lieutenant governor who could not seem to come out on her own feet to force a convincing message to the public. With the last ballots tallied, Ehrlich claimed the governorship by a measly 4%, hardly guaranteeing his return to Annapolis after four years. But the Princeton graduate faced greater challenges that this, especially considering his wishy washy stances on major issues in the Congress, and his unwillingness to be true to his core as the chief executive.

So a record of partial fiscal responsibility and lobbyist welcoming government helped him lose his job in 2006, when the mistake-plagued Mayor of Baltimore, Martin O'Malley, won more votes statewide. Fast forward four years: O'Malley is borderline unpopular, the economy is stalling, and Ehrlich is not running alongside George W. Bush, so why does the day end with his 14-point defeat? Largely because his campaign was so atrociously strung together, with no vision and a state party equally bankrupt of the virtuous principle.

Historically, the party has had this problem, with the last GOP governor prior to Ehrlich the categorically corrupt Spiro Agnew, who left office in 1969. In Maryland, a state where the party is out-registered 2-1, this might seem natural, yet even the states of New Jersey and California manage the occasional Republican governor or senator despite their true blue leanings around most election years. The problem is that Republican candidates have ever so frequently tried to repaint themselves as moderate-to-liberal instead of bringing voters from the other side into their turf. A number of stances could help sway Democrats to the GOP brand, as shown in the following.

• A pro-environmental stance on the eastern shore.
• Tax incentives to draw government contractors to the state.
• A longer session of the General Assembly coupled with a 15% decrease in legislator salaries. 
• Strong educational reforms in Prince George's County and Montgomery County to foster results that do not drop the state to the bottom nationwide. 
• Term limits for all assemblymen, and a ban on lobbying for the duration of the Assembly's session. 
• Proud pro-life candidates.
• Increased student loans with a drawback on state agencies in other areas. 

There is no way to guarantee where the next GOP governor or senator may arise from, yet wisdom dictates that it will likely be a representative from Baltimore County or perhaps even Prince George's County. The purpose of such a strategy would be to build up a strong coalition with African-American voters in those respective areas, after which the only major challenge would be to swing over blue collar white voters in southern Maryland. While Agnew may not be the best example to look at as a successful politician, he did manage to accomplish this by appealing to the immigrant bases in the area of the center state, eventually reaching the governor's mansion by a decent margin. 

Victory is not unreachable in Maryland; it is unlikely however if the party remains unable to unite under a common banner for the good of the state. Each GOP controlled office must be used to slowly chip away at the massive one-party machine, bringing about positive reform which will allow future candidates to have less struggle in gaining the trust of the Democratic majorities.  

Frank Ames

Adjunct Writer--The Red Maryland Network

A Wiser Republic

The great philosopher Plato always spoke of the dangers of democracy, as he realized the unhealthy tendency for voters to choose as they so believe, regardless of hard facts or common sense. In an olden analogy, he uses the example of a ship floundering in the bowels of a tempest, led by a weak captain who represents the majority, and a crew of sailors, who show themselves to be as politicians, anxious to dismantle and then seize control. And even as this remains intensely applicable in the modern day, many seem to defend democracy as the only way, disregarding what could be a singular yet decisive change for the best in its clockwork: a prerequisite test for each registered voter. 

Of course this move brings immediate scorn and hate from members of the more socially liberal, who feel it would be disadvantageous to their average supporters, however a quick analysis of this past election campaign can prove otherwise, in states both in the east and west coast. 


To be clear, the following assessments of the Maryland, Oregon, and Washington races are not meant to be overtly partisan; on the contrary, they can be applied in 2008 to the Senate Race in Georgia, in which voters failed to elect a good man over a sleazy Republican insider. Depending on the circumstance, the disease of voter ignorance can permeate across both red and blue states, though for practical purposes it focuses on the blue in this election. 


When Bob Ehrlich announced his bid for reelection in early 2006, he should have cruised to victory, even as a conservative in the Democratic haven of Maryland. Instead, voters moved to elect Martin O'Malley due to his party affiliation, letting Ehrlich leave office with immense budget successes despite his earning of a second term. But in 2010, as the former governor launched a comeback bid, Maryland voters, clinging desperately to their Democratic leanings, would not reelect him, regardless of O'Malleys blatant failures to keep the state;s fiscal house in order. All because of Baltimore, a haven for welfare recipients and the average ignoramus when it comes to politics, the entire state was forced to loose a hope for economic recovery. 

Democrats have argued that background is important in any election, and so they propped up failure ex-governor John Kitzhaber to battle the imposing Chris Dudley, who was bulleted  as inexperienced and unprepared to lead--notwithstanding the 28 years of Democratic rule in the state which has led to a budget shortfall and 25% of the state budget meant for public sector retirement pay. True Dudley was a novice, yet he swept the entire state, only losing because of Portland's strong Democratic lean, and equal lean away from sensibility. If thirty years cannot solve one's problems, is it not time for a change?

And to the north, Washington's vote, decided predominantly by King County, went to veteran Democratic Senator Patty Murray, ignoring her categorically corrupt associations with Wall Street lobbyists and special interests in the nation's capital. Never mind that her opponent, estate agent Dino Rossi, carried most every county of the state--it is only the population center which counts. 

So are these outcomes really sensible or fair? Should each race be hinging on the largest portion of the states, which according to studies are the least educated and intellectually deficient? There's no forcible right or wrong answer, yet this should not stop the country from adopting a test for would be voters before they may pass their ballots. Nothing extreme, but a quick test on constitutional law would be enough to encourage individuals to read up on the issues before going out to vote, thus resulting in at least closer or more logical election consequences. 

Melanie Bryant

National Alliance Vice President for Education

Analysis and Progress

The tidal wave is certainly subsiding, yet within its wake is a call not to sit back in temerity, but rather to step up and challenge the issues which we so desperately need to overcome in these next two years. After four years of painful eradication at the ballot box, the Republicans have returned to Capitol Hill in full force, led by a stronger grassroots effort than ever seen before, and a mandate to deliver fundamental changes to government. As the National Alliance Foundation made clear in an earlier piece, this must be a time for the GOP to truly work and complete its promises to the public. Winning a race is one thing, yet following through on campaign promises is another entirely, and this is the test of the Republican mettle for 2011.

In almost a saddening way, the Democrats have fallen prey to the mistakes of poor judgement, and they arrive at Congress in January lacking senior giants such as Ike Skelton, Jim Oberstar, Allen Boyd, and even Rick Boucher, who could not survive the swarm of opposition in rural southern Virginia. This leaves the Democrats with less senior members, and a reminder of how governmental folly punishes the arrogant of the mob with minority status. The House is gone, solidly rocked to the other side with a sixty vote swing, though some still believe it may go as high as seventy over the next few days.

Although the Senate was easier for the Democratic Party to survive in, their proximity to defeat in a number of races should also serve as something of a message of 2012 and their electoral hopes in that great contest. In the state of Washington, upstart Dino Rossi looks likely to lose, yet only by less than 1%, a sure sign of danger in the traditionally blue state which Barack Obama cruised to victory in during 2008. Michael Bennett may fend off Ken Buck, but only by a mere point as well, putting that state's loyalty in question for the president's reelection. Obviously the firmest results for the left were in Nevada, where Harry Reid survived the coup to remove him from power, and California, where Barbara Boxer crushed challenger Carly Fiorina by more than 600,000 votes.

Possibly a larger problem for the DNC to mull over now is the simple dilemma of state gubernatorial races, which seem destined to hand bellwether states to the GOP, swapping out only a choice few solid blue provinces of California and New York with confident liberals. Ohio will now have a Republican governor, as will likely Florida and Michigan, all key states for both redistricting and the next presidential contest. Even true blue Oregon, which has not elected a Republican for decades, seems destined to fall out of the center-left's hands as Chris Dudley leads his Democratic opponent.

As if the fall of the giants was not enough, countless freshmen Democrats have been soundly routed, most notably with the case of liberal bastion and take-no-prisoners Alan Grayson, whose distasteful ads landed him a double digit silencing as Republican Daniel Webster annihilated his chances at reelection.

Refuting claims of anti-minority standing, the GOP elected a number of African Americans, most notably Allen West in Florida and Tim Scott in South Carolina. And in statewide contests, Marco Rubio pummeled independent Charlie Crist and Democrat Kendrick Meek, followed by Susana Martinez's defeating Diane Denish, adding more Hispanics to the national Republican caucus. In short, the mirage of the DNC serving as some welcoming all party was shattered as voters turned to real leadership, not talking points.

While these are all causes for celebration, they must serve as a warning to the GOP to not repeat the disaster of 1995, which was simply a smearing of President Bill Clinton. Indeed, Mitch McConnell's unwise quip that the GOP's focus is only unseating Barack Obama was hardly prudent, and should disqualify him from the leadership post. This Congress needs to represent action, not political gains. Republicans have a duty to build reasons for their taking of the executive branch in 2012, not simply a platform. That is the test of leadership for the GOP for the next two years in the lower house majority.


Jordan Wells

National Alliance Vice President for Policy

Rise and Fall

A sizable number of observers have already noted that Ed Miliband's narrow victory for the opposition post in Great Britain marks a shift in policy away from the Tony Blair era, yet they seem to miss the largest ramification which it will near positively have on the state of government: David Cameron's election defeat. Regardless of Cameron's hopes for grand coalition of liberal conservatism, his own arrogance towards principles shall be the ticket to sweep his younger opponent into office in the 2015 general election.

Although he began his term as opposition leader in December 2005 following a reasonable polling success of leader Michael Howard, Cameron squandered his beliefs for the assurance of his eventual premiership, flipping sides on practically every issue until his credentials on policy boiled down to a vague "cuts in the budget" mentality. Voters in 2010 were not simply angry about the economy; they desired a premier who would once again respect their nation for what it was, not what Labour wanted in to become. Yet in his last ditch effort to hold together a fragile base, the future prime minister began endorsing everything from multiculturalism deception  to gay marriage and abortion. Unlike William Hague, Iain Smith, and Howard before him, Cameron detests the conservative message, dancing in the streets instead for a savvy public relations image which lacks sincerity but managed to still win an election...with 36% of the vote.

Sadly for the Etonite, his rush from principle will hand the Commons to Ed Miliband, a man with Marxist sympathies and little interest in the right-wing policies of Tony Blair and John Major.

It is not to say that the British people dislike the fundamentals of conservatism--in fact they embrace them, albeit not in the shaved and forlorn arrangement made by David Cameron. The prime minister's fleeing from tough terrorism policies, radical reform to the NHS, and a return to traditional values is the weight to his ankle for 2015. While the coalition may be above water now, their worthless three-point advantage will not mean much once Mr. Miliband starts showing his own skill in question periods, which some compare to Cameron's.

Miliband offers little of substance to the nation, yet his opponent's gerrymandering to maintain a progressively charged coalition with the Liberal Democrats will both dissatisfy conservatives, who will not show up to poll, and upstart the left, who will undoubtedly come out in full force for the Labour leader. By 2015, Cameron's brittle immigration and anti-terrorism policies will seem pale compared to those of even the Brown government, losing him the support of moderates who might have been less skeptical with the presence of firm defense appropriations by the administrating parties.

As it remains clear today, the only aspect that might save Cameron would be for his party to install William Hague as head of government, reverting the former premier to a lower education or secretariat position in which his damaging behavior can be repelled. Never before has Great Britain had a weaker or less decisive leader in charge of its daily affairs, and only swift reversal can save the nation from its slippery slope of centralized government and radicalized multiculturalism.

Gabriele Vogt

National Alliance Chairman

Economic Mayhem: Part II

In recent hours, the Obama Administration announced its plans for a new fiscal blitz against the wavering economy with a carefully labeled "economic plan." Quick to respond after reporters attempted to place the new attempt into the same category as the Administration's earlier stimulus package, the President furiously insisted on giving it the precautionary tag of the aforementioned plan, hoping to avoid a parallel comparison with his all but universally loathed  "cures" for our nation's monetary and fiscal problems.

Whether Barack Obama employs more rhetoric or even none at really is irrelevant at the point in history, and will not truly help us save us from the pitfall of an extended or double dipped recession within our economy. It is not that any members of the current majority government honestly feel or can prove the future benefits of the first and now proposed second stimulus; rather, they know the prior attempt was all a worthless facade, and the second will mirror its same classifications.

No, the Administration and the Congress is tying everything to the hated word of Capitol Hill, the binding fragment that should not inhabit the minds of our leaders as they make decisions,l yet is all too present in our present state of governance: political ideology. Even in its most mild form, the sensation has so passionately seized hold of the Democratic Party and the President that it now threatens to become the key ticket to both of their downfalls in this fresh decade.

What must be understood in explaining this is that the top dogs of the Democratic Leadership, most notably Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer, ran in 2006 and 2008 not with a European-style social democratic platform, but with a more moderate, fix Washington strategy. Americans were less appreciative of the Democrats than simply angry at the Republicans, and without too much difficulty, the center-leftist party coasted to an admirable victory, capturing both houses and inflicting several humiliating defeats on the incumbent Republicans. Two years later in 2008, the Democrats tried to play the same card, interrupted only by the presence of a somewhat annoying presidential candidate who was convinced that mass appeal was his ticket to the Whitehouse. He went from closing Guantanamo Bay, to fixing the economy, to trying terrorists in America,  with a touch of everything to please the unsatisfiable populace, and came out on top.

Now President Obama and his party's leaders are struggling to cover for the unrealistic policies which he foolishly proposed in order to win the 2008 election. After all the fundraising and claims of future prosperity, his government is boiling down to an atrocious mix of braggart ways and projected, not sincere, leadership.

With his latest gambit being a second stimulus package, even the President knows his plans will not work, but he is fixated about the historical view of his ideology. Did he stick his guns as a social democrat, or dispel Keynesian philosophy for fundamentalist common sense? Truth unveiled, Barack Obama cannot stand the notion of his ideology being publicly versed as ineffective a wrong. His type of persona will always object, arguing long after his presidency that "too much obstructionism was involved," and that "the time was not right" for his plans to reach positive fruition.

Despite the endless sentences of jargon we will be forced to endure both in defense of this new package and afterwards, good men must push on for beneficial additions to help the economy. As the National Alliance Foundation has made clear, the key to recovery is not in more government, or in breaks only for corporations, but in the restarting of the small business community to provide jobs and opportunity to the commonwealth. Entrepreneurs, armed with a restructured policy that aims to eliminate business income tax and hands out credits for companies who invest in domestically produced products will boost our state of fiscal stability to a healthy zone of general success in the near future.

If President Obama desires to mend his image with the voters, then he must shift his range of vision to focus on helping businesses survive, not in paying off union members with large checks from the taxpayer's pocket. In fact, it would be far wiser to simply give the money to businesses through loans and to state and local governments. Federal programs are known for their ineptitude and poor results, verse the wiser actions of councilors and delegates closer to the public.

Our recovery from this recession will not come from the government; it shall be made up of the efforts and bravery of the small business community, which is the heart and soul of the American People.

John Lai

National Alliance Treasurer and Comptroller General

Reasonable Appreciation

I think it's best to begin this piece by making a rather obvious distinction: the National Alliance Party shares close to zero sympathies to the political positions of activist and former Green Party presidential nominee Ralph Nader. When one examines even the general viewpoints of Mr. Nader, they are clearly way out of line with both the American way of life, and the concerns of most of the mainstream population. But while that may be true, I feel inclined as a member of this organization to reach out and show him the respect garnered by even the wisest who promote values similar to those of our viewpoint. 

Despite being considered irrelevant by both parties at the onset of the 2000 Presidential election, Nader ascended to a position of the so called "spoiler," after his campaign for chief executive gathered an impressive 2.74% of the popular votes. Since the man's campaign received such a large number of its ballots from the State of Florida, Democratic strategists have since contended that his presence on the voting papers cost Vice President Al Gore the general election.  

I feel this is unfair on many accounts, and simply surmises to a juvenile sore loser attitude from the DNC, which could not even take the presidency from George W. Bush in 2004, despite their tremendous advantage, and Nader's far lesser portion of the votes. These can briefly be covered by including Gore's weak campaign, the presidential debates commission, and Nader's own message for the year 2000. 

Perhaps in an admirable attempt to avoid the "no clear definition" characteristic given to former President George H.W. Bush after the Republican's copying of Ronald Reagan's image to win in 1988, Al Gore distanced himself, rather disastrously, from Bill Clinton's administration of America. Considering the Arkansas Democrat's tendency to present a record of messy and unsettling personal relationships, as well as the South's aversion to such public behavior, this might actually be viewed as wise, accept for the fact that the Vice President's alternative was nothing short of weak and ineffective. 

And so Al Gore became the paladin for environmental protection in the United States, leaving behind the strongest issue for his candidacy in that year: the 3 trillion dollar surplus left by Bill Clinton. The merits of the money reserves can be debated, but no matter what is said, it made a terrific ploy for a strong and difficult to beat campaign. Instead, Donna Brazile, Gore's manager, allowed him to pursue a reckless and shoddy plan which was doomed to fail against the charismatic pro-tax cuts Texas governor, George W. Bush. Fused together, the following ad reveals just how out of touch Gore's message felt to a public in which less than 10% today feel protecting the planet is an important issue (Gallup Poll). 

As the election came around to presidential debates, little action was taken by the Democratic Party to help include Mr. Nader, despite his insurgent strength in choice polls and in battleground states. Not surprisingly, the commission for debates, controlled by both former party chairs of the two major electoral factions and a large number of corporations, refused to allow Ralph Nader to attend any of their three sessions, and even went as far as to deny him a seat despite his registered invitation and ticket for attendance. According to commission rules, candidates must poll at least 5% in several national questionnaires before being admitted, and Nader did not qualify with enough support. In minced terms, he was not relevant to the equation--accept that he became very relevant as soon as his movement hurt the Democrats. 

Ever since Al Gore conceded the race to George W. Bush, the Democratic Party has attempted to slander the man for his hopeful candidacy, absolutely avoiding how his message drew members of all parties and ideologies to cast their ballots for him in 2000. As noted before, Nader's views can seem ridiculous at some corners, yet his message for the turn of the century was to forge a strong alliance between the people and honest businesspeople in America. The Democrats failed to deliver their historical populist message, and neglected to use the strongest element of advantage: the Clinton surplus. What should have been an easy victory turned into a milestone of defeat as the party scrambled to realign, and failed again, in 2004. 

Ralph Nader may never become president, nor should anyone hope he does, yet the man deserves our respect and consideration. Standing firm against two of the largest and most powerful parties in the United States is not cakewalk; it requires tenacity and an iron resilience against the opposition. For all his work, Ralph Nader has seen even his closest friends betray him for the Democratic Party, yet a stronger force is allied with him: countless Americans who desire fundamental change in the system of government. 

David Marino

National Alliance Vice President for Campaigns

     

A New Direction

With all the tumultuous happenings of the 2010 election, it can often become difficult to decipher which candidates are after serving their constituents, and those who see a high salary and governmental power as more important. As an organization which advocates a new standard of rule in Washington, as well as the return of power to the masses, the National Alliance Party is not quick to simply go about handing down endorsements to partisan hopefuls in the forthcoming races without good reason or understanding of their views and plans to shape a stronger future for the United States of America.

All told, the National Alliance Party is choosing to step forward and support a fantastic candidate in the figure of Jaime Herrera, who has launched a vigorous effort to represent the people of  Washington State as the 3rd district representative to the People's House in our nation's capital. Despite facing a formidable foe in Democratic state representative Dennny Heck, Jaime has stuck to a positive message of job creation and work to help bolster small business across the 3rd district and the country.

After a life long commitment to public service, Herrera has become a staunch advocate for governmental reform,  with a comprehensive plan to enforce regulations and penalties against lawmakers and other Washington insiders who breach public trust during their careers. Her plan will not only help people to gain more trust and faith in government, but also set a high bar for the performance and service of congresspeople, ensuring that their hearts are set on being true stewards of the public's faith and voting ballots.



Beyond this, Jaime gives inspiration to women across America to stand up for positive, small government values, and avoid being sidelined in the political process. Electing her to the house will set a new modus operandi for elections and the process of Washington, refusing to permit the elite circles of power from festering and solidifying their control over whom is allowed entrance to lawmaking procedures and structures.

Washington desperately needs a new wave of leadership to cleanse its halls of the marred corruption which has permeated since January 2007, and Jaime Herrera is the ideal person to lead that very charge for the rights and sake of the American people.  

Cate Ashton

National Alliance Vice President for Operations