Third Party Presidential Candidates who NEVER get any press

So, after all the shouts about "Ron Paul is being ignored in the press", I just noticed on Issues2000.org a group of people running for President that I don't believe I've seen ANY big national news stories about.

In the interests of fairness and justice (not to mention the Justice Party, which I've never heard of before), here are the REAL ignored candidates And you can all join me in going "who???"

Rocky Anderson, Justice Party I never heard of that particular party, either. Anderson's an ex-mayor of Salt Lake City -- I kinda like his stance, but I'm not sure he's on any ballots except as a write-in.

Gary Johnson for the Libertarian Party A new convert. He did make national news with his party switch and his announcement of his recent candidacy. Not on the ballots in any states so far (too new in his candidacy)

Scott Keller, Independent -- another one that I don't believe I've seen a single news story about.

J.L. Mealer, Independent -- winner, hands down of the most confusing issues statement: "Don't treat gay-Americans as hyphenated-Americans" No clue here, J.L. Explain that one for me.

Jill Stein of the Green Party -- A political party that I've actually heard of! I like a number of her stances, but am not sure if she's got the votes to get on anyone's polls.

I doubt the Republican flap will give these folks much of a boost, but I thought I'd mention them here and then see if I can dig up any news stories on these VERY un-mentioned, un-invited candidates.

reply to post by Indellkoffer


Yeah.. he was in one of the GOP debates. Wouldn't be a bad VP.

reply to post by Indellkoffer
S&F for you as the US would be MUCH better off if third parties got a fair shake and we broke loose of the two-party chokehold they've got on this country.

Speaking to Gary Johnson, I absolutely agree he would be a great VP (if Paul pulls off a miracle, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Gary as a VP pick, and would love it), and he actually got top score on the ACLU's Liberty Watch candidate report card this year (thread in news feed if anyone wants to review).

Cheers to Paul for supporting third parties:


EDIT: Sad...Johnson's the only one I've heard of, as well...

Interesting -- but unlike the days of the Founding Fathers, the VP and Prez have to come from the same party. I don't see the Republicans suddenly embracing some of these guys. And the two Independents... I don't know how in the heck they're funding their campaign (if they are) or how they managed to get on an official list of "Presidential candidates." I shall have to look that up

Meanwhile, I did find the Green Party's website

And the Justice Party's website -- or, one of them. They're trying hard, really, to be a viable third party but the Libertarians, frankly, are more famous They're trying to get on the California ballot, and I wish them luck on it.


Scott Keller has been trying his lil' heart out -- but I'm not too sure of his strategy. He's picked up the domains "occupy-the-white-house.com/.org./net/.info. It's an interesting move, but I'm not sure it's all that effective. The only news I see is generated by a Cathy somebody on his staff (or perhaps his wife) and it's all on PR Wire.

reply to post by Indellkoffer
Agreed, it's very unlikely - unless Paul gets the nod, at least - but until recently Johnson was a republican (as he was during his time as NM governor).

Unsurprisingly, he's got his doubts about the odds for any real hope in the republican party...

reply to post by Praetorius


As a Republican candidate, Paul can't pick a non-party member as his running mate. Them's the rules. Unless someone jumps ship to be a Republican (and they'd better consider it pretty soon), there's no chance. Nor am I sure that any one of these would bring a lot of new people to him as a candidate.

The VP pick is supposed to be one that will enhance the Presidentia candidate -- hence the choice of Sarah Palin I think that the general strategy is "find someone likeable but not too controversial."

And, having clicked on Scott Keller's "occupy" website links, I can say that niether Mr. Keller nor his staff know how to set up a website (they're all parked. He might be holding them for sale later, which would be an okay idea.) He does know how to tweet, however, and has a livelier twitter feed than I have. I don't know if he's actually made any gains with this social media, though.

reply to post by Indellkoffer


Well.. the VP pick was supposed to be someone that would do a good job as VP, but that changed when they picked Sarah Palin to essentially be a kicker for the president.

I don't think anyone ever cared as much about the VP as people did with the last election. If Paul were to get the nod I could see Johnson switching back for him, but if he expected anything like that he wouldn't have switched in the first place. I would guess if Paul picks anyone that is a face and a republican he would pick Huntsman.

reply to post by Indellkoffer

Interesting -- but unlike the days of the Founding Fathers, the VP and Prez have to come from the same party.

Exactly like the days of the Founding Fathers, there is no Constitutional requirement or mandate forcing a Presidential candidate to choose only from his or her own political party the Vice Presidential candidate. Political parties may have some rule to this regard, but no political party has any Constitutional mandate and certainly does not have the lawful authority to prevent a Presidential candidate from choosing a Vice Presidential candidate from a different political party.

I'm not sure why J.L. Mealer is considered a candidate, other than he told someone he is. I can't find a website for him, a twitter stream, or anything. And he's sure not making any news.

I suspect this is a case of someone representing themselves. Bad idea in a legal case, bad idea in politics

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


That's kinda what I was thinking too.
I wasn't sure though.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Exactly like the days of the Founding Fathers, there is no Constitutional requirement or mandate forcing a Presidential candidate to choose only from his or her own political party the Vice Presidential candidate. Political parties may have some rule to this regard, but no political party has any Constitutional mandate and certainly does not have the lawful authority to prevent a Presidential candidate from choosing a Vice Presidential candidate from a different political party

I stand corrected. I was under the impression that Republicans would throw a massive hissy fit if a candidate picked a non-republican This article suggesting Bob McDonnell might be a good VP choice highlights a lot of the issues that indicate nobody's going to leap at a chance to convert a third party candidate to their cause -- in most cases.

Wow.. there's actually a LOT of minor candidates trying to run in the Republican election -- I only paid attention to the top runners in the past. This is... interesting.

Just ran across this site and had to fill you people in on some details and facts.
I have been with the Arizona US Taxpayer party long before the name change to Constitution Party and have been actively building the MEALER Automobile as a new automaker should. What can I say? I'm an engineer who builds things. After GM, GMAC and the Fed Gov't shut me down in 2009 and Mealer v GM, GMAC, et al was crushed by the USDOJ, I decided to spin my wheels running for POTUS. I'll take office in 2016 after I prove that I can create more private sector jobs as a civilian over the next three years and that my plans are indeed more solid and the only viable options for America at this point. that is, until 'they' shut me down again.

You'd like my plans. In fact, since they are the ONLY VIABLE PLANS out there, you should love them.

HOWEVER, the current Constitution Party refused to recognize me because I attacked the 100% corrupt Virgil Goode and have endorsed Robby Wells for their nominee. Did I mention that you'd love my plans yet?

Order AMERICA SHRUGGED or contact me for a free copy. mealer2012.com...

By the way... THE COMMENT I MADE about Gay-Americans should stop being considered hyphenated Americans comes from the Theodore Roosevelt no hyphenated Americans era. No one deserves special favors over anyone else.. The comment was out of context as to be expected.