Could a 9/11 Truth Candidate Win the Presidency?

A new Wall Street Journal poll shows that 53% of Americans back the idea of building a third party to mount a presidential candidacy.

Seven of 10 say an independent would enhance the presidential campaign, and just 11% say they wouldn’t consider voting for an independent.

For the first time, I'm wondering whether a third party candidate could actually win. Now, of course, the candidate would have to get past the corporate media, who vehemently attacks anyone who does not support the corporate/fascist state. And the candidate would also have to be popular enough to overcome the election fraud which is sure to carried out by the powers-that-be in 2008. But if the candidate is popular enough, then even with alot of mischief, he or she might be able to win (even though there was voter fraud in 2006, the Democrats won).

True, the Wall Street Journal poll showed that in a hypothetical independent bid against Clinton and Giuliani, New York City Mayor Bloomberg drew just 16% from self-described independents. However, Bloomberg is just the same old same old.

If a candidate talked about real issues, like 9/11, and the Constitution, and fasiscm, he or she might do alot better.

What if Kucinich blew off the Democratic party -- which isn't supporting him -- and ran independent?

What if Ron Paul blew off the Republican party -- which isn't supporting him -- started talking about 9/11 truth, and ran independent?

Or should a new candidate who is a strong 9/11 truthteller run?

Obviously, another false flag attack and the whole Constitution (let alone an election) would probably be suspended, and the secret Continuity of Government Plan would be implemented. But perhaps a real 9/11 truth and anti-false flag independent candidate could get the word out, reducing the risk of another false flag.

The real question is -- given the media's hatred of anyone who is not a corporate lapdog -- are we prepared to get the word out about an independent candidate?

yes, i think a leading

yes, i think a leading candidate or a candidate with a real shot of winning could EASILY walk to victory if they talked about REAL issues like 9/11. if Ron Paul did what you suggest, run as an independent and finally talk honestly about 9/11, he quite possibly could win the presidency(or at least increase his chances). a serious presidential candidate talking 9/11 truth would change the whole discussion. its time to STOP playing by the MSM's rules. let them attack. DONT let them frame the debate. ignoring 9/11 truth for the good of Paul is letting them do that. as it stands now Paul has next to no shot. if a new 9/11 truth friendly candidate all of a sudden entered the race he/she wouldnt have the sway and credibility that a Paul has built up over the years. im all for it, at least the issue would be forced onto the table in some way but it would be so much more powerful if Paul or even Kucinich started talking honestly about 9/11. Kucinich, while at least looking into "narrow aspects" of some "financial issues" of 9/11 is still too vague(September will clear things up) on the subject and as we all know, Paul has recently rejected the notion of 9/11 being an inside job on any level and regularly talks about "al qaeda",blowback and how the 9/11 Commission Report is the authority on the attacks. suffice to say i dont expect Paul to all of a sudden "get it" and i honestly dont expect much from Kucinich either. but yes, if one of these candidates started going strong on the 9/11 issue their chances of victory and with it the visibility of 9/11 truth would increase significantly. as it stands now, both Kucinich and Paul have pretty much no shot. NOT talking 9/11 truth hasnt gotten them very far. Paul rules the internet in large part because of 9/11 truthers. informed people make informed decisions, thats why Paul is so strong online. i wish he would help us inform the general public about 9/11, he would help himself and all of us in the long run.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

What platform would satisfy the 53 percent ?

(Well said Chris).

Your point is important at this juncture. Somebody should be working towards bringing together that 53 percent. Is that what your are saying?

Without endorsing George Washington for president, I would say there is a natural alliance between the Anti-war, 911, the fired attorneys, the tax patriots, and all the other true believers. Ron Paul represents himself. Dont get me wrong. He might be suitable, but he has to say things load and clear to get everyone on board. Imagine the impact of say a Professor Jones vote of confidence?

Working from the grass roots, real leaders should emerge by the time of the general strike to announce such a coelition. A virtual broker is needed, I guesse we could be hearing from several overlapping pet lists before the dust settles to a consensus for a dream team. That coelition would represent and agree on a platform of the real issues.

To answer the real question:

Just think of the support those 53 percent, that third party movement, would get from the global community of peace loving 911 truthers. It is happening now in Brussels. This could solve part of the problem of getting coverage (raising cash to buy media time).

At this time someone should go out there and broker the deal by begging the question.