# A new choice for President



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Tired of no good choice for president in either party? People who believe in limited government, constitutional order and individual freedom still have somewhere to go in this election. If, somehow, the Clintons manage to wrestle the Democratic nomination from Obama, and if McCain really does continue what looks like a morphing into a neocon supply-sider budget-buster, then Barr will increasingly look like an option for a solid protest vote

I've said it before... it is really a shame we can't officially have 3 candidates on every presidential ballot. We _*need*_ a third choice to make the other party's work harder!

*http://reason.tv/video/show/398.html*



> Libertarian Party presidential hopeful Bob Barr recently visited the reason D.C. HQ to talk about why he's running for the nation's highest office. The main reason? The erosion of civil liberties and evisceration of the Constitution under George W. Bush. In this no-question-left-unasked interview conducted by reason's David Weigel and filmed by reason's Dan Hayes, Barr explains why he voted for The PATRIOT Act and the authorization of force in Iraq (two votes he regrets greatly); what federal cabinet-level departments he would axe; why he changed his mind about the drug war; what the future holds for the LP; and much more.


*So pull up a chair and spend about 15 minutes with the former GOP congressman from Georgia who now works with the ACLU and the NRA.*

Do you agree with his positions?

Ryan


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Being unhappy with Bush and not liking Kerry, I voted for Badnarik in '04. I figured since ND was going to go heavily Bush anyways, my vote would mean more by promoting a 3rd party. I guess you could call it a protest vote as well perhaps.

I like a lot of things about the Libertarian party and think they could really do a lot of good at the federal level. Some of my views are too socialist for them (which I'd say also accounts for about 95% of the countries views). I don't agree with them on a lot of things, or at least to the extent they take it. I believe in landowner's rights, but also realize you need drainage and environmental laws, things like that for example, etc.

I really like their stance in protecting ALL our rights, not just which ones they select like the Republocrats. I think their fiscal policies are what our country need right now...and you know they'd have the balls to actually go in and cut spending across the board.

The problem is the there won't be a viable 3rd party option ever IMO, barring a revolution. The Republicans and Democrats want to keep themselves in power and have made it impossible for a 3rd party to jump in with a lot of campaign regulations they have put in place.

Which is really sad IMO. Our country didn't start off with the GOP and DFL, there have been several other prominent parties along the way. We used to have a political evolution of sorts that has become stagnant. We want...no, we desperately Need change, yet we're stuck being forced to vote for the same 2 parties who are responsible for running this country into the ground.

We'll see what happens. If Obama loses the nomination I will be voting Libertarian.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Matt Jones said:



> If Obama loses the nomination I will be voting Libertarian.


WOW :eyeroll: Talk about going from one extreme to the other :lol:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

zogman said:


> Matt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Got me scratching my head too. :huh: Are not their values diametrically opposed?


----------



## sdeprie (May 1, 2004)

It seemed that way to me. At this point, I'm too afraid of either Clinton or Obama in office, depending on who finally steals the nomination, so my only alternative is McCain (a poor choice at best, but better than any Dem). If he were in a clear position to win, I could see my way to a protest vote, as well.


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

If you want to be sure that you get another dem elected be sure to vote for a third party as your protest vote.

That is how we ended up with Bill Clinton to begin with. Remember that little James Bond villain look-a-like named Ross Perot? He diluted the vote and what-do-you-know? Bill Clinton for eight years!

I know the choice for a true conservative is poor to non-existent but I am not going to waste my vote. I did that before and got Jim Janos aka Jesse (The Body) Ventura.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Theres nothing extreme about the libertarian party.

I bet if you guys examined their positions you would agree with most of them. They are the true "less government keep the feds out of you business" constitutional supporting party.

The rupublicans say they are for les government but do not do what they say, and the Dems definitely are not for much more govt. intrusion

unfortunately the Libertarian position on drugs, which I agree with, is demagoged and misrepresented. And we are a country of idiots that refuse to do anyting different about knee jerk problems like drugs, but I digress :wink:

The one beef I do have with them is their position on the war in Iraq.

After watching the republicans spit in the eyes of conservatives for the last 10 years and the democrats I don't really understand how anyone can supprt either one of them.


----------



## sdeprie (May 1, 2004)

As I thought I said, but obviously wasn't clear; the republicans available are but the lesser of two evils, and a vote for the libertarians, at this point, is a vote away from the republicans, making it a vote for the democrats. I think that's what whistler was trying to say, too. I have posted several times how disappointed I am in the republicans, at this point. I think there are some good ones out there, but I can't understand how, or why, republican voters refuse to support them.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

The problem with that is we never will get anywhere if we keep choosing the lesser of two evils, which McCain definitely is.

Its very frustrating, the real problem is we have so dumbed down and

so "PC" in our country that few people voting have a clue.

They can all tell you about their quarter back or who is winning on American Idol , but none of them have any idea what their congressmans positions are. Most can not even name their congressman.

There should be a tough civics test in the voting booth and if you flunk you dont get to vote.

We are so screwed up that they actaully had to get the supreme court to approve of a picture ID to make the Dems quit cheating with multiple votes and Illegals voting. And I say the dems because they were the ones fightling like hell against it

Like having a picture idea is some kind af racist thing.

Its really hopeless


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

zogman said:


> Matt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, I knew someone would call me on that! :lol:

I don't think it is that extreme to be honest, since I view the democrats right now as the more conservative party compared to the Republicans; when you look at the main issues in this race.

The two biggest issues are the economy and Iraq, and they are one in the same IMO. Without exiting Iraq our economy is screwed and we're going to have no hope of balancing a budget and increasing the value of the dollar.

McCain's plan is to do exactly what we've done the past 8 years, and expect it to change for the better. His policies are anything but conservative. He is a much bigger fiscal liberal then Obama. He is going to have deficits as big, or bigger then Bush.

I'm not crazy about Obama, but a lot of his proposals make more sense IMO. Of course there's a lot of things I don't like about him, but when it comes to the economy and Iraq I think with him there's at least a chance.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Matt Jones said:


> zogman said:
> 
> 
> > Matt Jones said:
> ...


Hey Matt

I fully agree with the above.

This is why MANY people are voting for Obama, even though they have conservative leanings. If more Republicans would try understanding the roots of our frustration with their positions, and returned to a more traditional Republican platform, then maybe they'd see why it is likely barring an Obama major stumble, why they will be losing the election in 6 months.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

sdeprie said:


> As I thought I said, but obviously wasn't clear; the republicans available are but the lesser of two evils, and a vote for the libertarians, at this point, is a vote away from the republicans, making it a vote for the democrats. I think that's what whistler was trying to say, too. I have posted several times how disappointed I am in the republicans, at this point. I think there are some good ones out there, but I can't understand how, or why, republican voters refuse to support them.





Bobm said:


> The problem with that is we never will get anywhere if we keep choosing the lesser of two evils, which McCain definitely is.
> 
> Its really hopeless


I fully agree Bob.

Voting Libertarian is definitely not throwing away a vote. If more people had the actual balls to do it, it would show that there is a LARGE contingent of America who does not strongly passionately believe in their party's platform.

The problem is we always have people coming onto discussion boards warning of the "great evil" of "throwing a vote away"....

Your one vote is very unlikely to decide a national election. Maybe if 10% of every state's independents/Libertarians_* actually did*_ vote for a 3rd party candidate, they'd have much more weight when making the case to be mandated to be included on every ballot.

I truly fear that the only way America will be able to turn around this scandolous political machine we currently have in this country, is to go to the Supreme Court and demand that the political partys allow 3rd party candidates equal footing in debates, polling places, elections and cabinet positions.

We simply HAVE to break the current political system up and bring it back to being more representative of the average American citizen.

We are indeed spiraling out of control... Many here have voiced similar concerns.

When are we actually going to stand up for that belief?


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> The problem with that is we never will get anywhere if we keep choosing the lesser of two evils


So whats the answer? Keep voting third party and putting a Democrat in office each time until enough people jump ship to support the Libertarian party? I think that would take several generations. Don't believe I would want a Democrat in office for four years, let alone 20 or 30 years. I think a better solution would be for the Libertarian party to straighten out their platform and nominate someone that everyone can support.

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the Libertarian party want to legalize drugs? Not with my vote will they do that. I don't think their position on drugs is misrepresented at all.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Big ears Perot put Clinton in office, no doubt about it. Democrats and republicans are both to spend crazy right now, but at least McDuffus isn't against the second amendment. 
As little respect as I have for Russia they do have one thing right. As many people that want can run for Premier. The top two have a run off. That is the only way a third party will have a chance, because our vote is not wasted. 
Democrats have learned to use this better than the republicans have. Remember when Jesse Jackson talked about running. I don't know what they promised him, but they talked him out of it. The democrats new that if Jesse tapped off the black vote that democrats would loose. 
It's not lack of guts that keep many of us from voting third party, it's the reality of what will happen. Although a democrat win this time around my insure that they never take the presidency again for 20 or 30 years. It would be ok if it wasn't for the number of Supreme Court justices that will be picked in the next few years.


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y (Sep 23, 2004)

When I read the thread title I thought it was going to say Me! R Y A N you should run.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Whistler31 said:


> That is how we ended up with Bill Clinton to begin with. Remember that little James Bond villain look-a-like named Ross Perot? He diluted the vote and what-do-you-know? Bill Clinton for eight years!


Ross Perot's voters were split pretty evenly between independents, republicans and democrats. Perot didn't lose that election for Bush, Bush lost that election for himself.

I was never a fan of Clinton while he was in office. But after the past 7 years I have become a fan. Seriously, what we so bad about the Clinton years? The guy left with a 66% approval rating despite all his scandals. Do want to know what Bush's approval rating is now?


> It's not lack of guts that keep many of us from voting third party, it's the reality of what will happen.


Did you vote for Bush last election? If so, why? He won ND big, our 3 electoral votes were guaranteed for him. So your vote meant nothing living in ND. IMO your vote would have meant more for a 3rd party.

I don't understand why people won't vote heavily 3rd party in states that are already spoken for. A 3rd party needs 5% of the popular vote to be able to get some federal campaign funding.

I understand your concerns about having the bigger of 2 evils get into office. But if you live in a state where one candidate is heavily favored, do yourself and your country a favor and vote 3rd party.

Make your vote actually count for something.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

hunt4P&Y said:


> R Y A N you should run.


Not likely given the current political climate. I have the passion, but have a much larger distaste for the quasi requirement to put my entire personal life up for public scrutiny.

I'm a huge fan of privacy rights, and the government has not done a good enough job to rein in the Press corps, and dictate that a person's personal life has to remain private and off limits.

That factor is a another factor that is a root cause of the mess we are currently in. Good people who have the desire and apptitude to run are shying away from office, as the media has no boundaries.

I refuse to subject me or my family to their intrusiveness.

Ryan


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I understand your concerns about having the bigger of 2 evils get into office. But if you live in a state where one candidate is heavily favored, do yourself and your country a favor and vote 3rd party.


Hmmmm, maybe. I had thought about this at one time, then like many things I forgot about it. I think here in North Dakota a person would be safe doing that. Good point.



> Ross Perot's voters were split pretty evenly between independents, republicans and democrats. Perot didn't lose that election for Bush, Bush lost that election for himself.


I can't remember how that went nationally, but I thought most of the people who voted for Perot were conservative. All the people I personally know who voted for Perot were all conservative. All the people I knew at the time of election who took Perot serious at all were conservative. Liberals that I knew actually hated the man. Most brought up the 20 sections of critical habitat he chained or bulldozed in Texas before the EPA could stop him. I think it was Pygmy owl habitat they considered lost.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Matt Jones said:


> Whistler31 said:
> 
> 
> > That is how we ended up with Bill Clinton to begin with. Remember that little James Bond villain look-a-like named Ross Perot? He diluted the vote and what-do-you-know? Bill Clinton for eight years!
> ...


Excellent reply Matt. I couldn't have said this any better myself.

It is this type of mentality that is holding back 3rd party candidates from making a more realistic representation in the overall results. People who are on the fence are bullied and/or ridiculed into voting mainstream, lest "the big evil other candidate" wins.... without fully doing the election math or even understanding it.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

> A detailed analysis of the voting demographics revealed that Perot's support drew heavily from across the political spectrum, with 20% of his votes coming from self-described liberals, 27% from self-described conservatives, and 53% coming from self-described moderates. Economically, however, the majority of Perot voters (57%) were middle class, earning between $15,000 and $49,000 annually, with the bulk of the remainder drawing from the upper middle class (29% earning over $50,000 annually).[8] *Exit polls also showed that Ross Perot drew 38% of his vote from Bush, and 38% of his vote from Clinton, while the rest of his voters would have stayed home in his absence on the ballot*[9].


Like I said, Perot didn't cost Bush the election. He took just as many votes away from Clinton as he did Bush, and he also attracted people who otherwise wouldn't have voted. I'm pretty sure this was basically across the board in all states. I don't believe there were states where he took the majority of his votes from a single party, costing either candidate that states' electoral votes.

As for the 3rd party thing you have to realize how the electoral college works. I'll be brutally honest, unless you live in a "battleground/swing-state" your vote really doesn't count for anything.

Nader didn't run to win. He ran with a goal of getting 5% of the popular vote. That's what a party needs to qualify for federal funding. He came up short both times with his highest total coming in 2000 at 4%. The problem is that our voters aren't educated enough to make the distinction of when their vote matters...and it all depends on what state your voting in.

If people in decided states would vote 3rd party it'd be very easy for several parties to get 5-10% of the popular vote without changing the outcome of the election. This is the only way to stop the stranglehold the two parties have on our country. Getting a party federal funding allows them to get their foot in the door. Maybe the election after they get funding, they'd be able to get enough of the polling percentage to get themselves into the debates. Without being in the debates they have no chance.

Speaking of Nader and 3rd parties changing the outcome of an election, Nader did pull enough votes from Gore to put Bush in office in 2000. This is fact; especially when you look at how many votes he took in FL. So the republicans are the ones who have the distinction of taking an election due to a 3rd party...not the other way around. :wink:


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Yes but as always you have to look past the man to see the big picture. While it is true Clinton left office with 65% approval ratings, this is also a president with truly dismal personal ratings: Sixty-seven percent of Americans said he's not honest and trustworthy. Seventy-seven percent said he lacked high moral and ethical standards. And just 44 percent viewed him favorably "as a person." Don't forget and very important is there was a Republican controlled congress that kept him in check at all times. The past has shown before that a congress and executive branch that is all controlled by the same party is usually a failure. I think the Republicans and Bush just reinforced that thinking the first 6 years of the Bush Presidency. Does anyone think it would be any different if the Democrats controlled all three again.

President Bush's ratings are at 31% according to Gallup. Not good by any means but still higher than Truman, whom a lot of people often refer to as a good president. We'll see which direction another 8 months sends his ratings.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

cwoparson said:


> Don't forget and very important is there was a Republican controlled congress that kept him in check at all times.


I don't...I think you could definitely make an argument that the republicans in congress played as much of a role (if not bigger) in our success as a country during those times.

I view the Clinton years like this. We had a good thing going and he didn't mess it up. The growth in the economy had more to do with what was happening at the time then the government. He rode the wave. He wasn't a great president by any means, but he was a good one.

Bush on the other hand, played a big role in messing things up IMO. I realize that with 9-11 he had more adversity to deal with in his terms but he handled them horribly and put us in the wrong direction.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> I don't...I think you could definitely make an argument that the republicans in congress played as much of a role (if not bigger) in our success as a country during those times.


I couldn't disagree with you more on that. The President cannot write a law. He can only sign it or veto it. Everything that came about during the Clinton years was the result of the Republican congress. If you don't think so just look at Clintons first two years in office. Nothing accomplished and a total mess. The American public were ready to string both clintons up by their heels, especially over the health care crap they were trying to push through. When the Republicans took over the House and Senate after the first two years, that is when things started to turn around.

I'm not saying it was only for that reason. What I'm saying is the Republican congress with a Democrat President were checks and balance to each other. Things actually got done that was to the benefit of the American people. When things go good the President gets the credit whether he deserved it or not. Same for when things go bad he will be blamed whether he deserves it or not. The system has never worked with one party controlling all three branches of government.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Matt Jones said:


> cwoparson said:
> 
> 
> > Don't forget and very important is there was a Republican controlled congress that kept him in check at all times.
> ...


I'm not sure if you misread what I wrote. By saying "I don't" I was saying I don't forget and that I agree with you.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> I'm not sure if you misread what I wrote. By saying "I don't" I was saying I don't forget and that I agree with you.


You're right, I did misunderstand. Gotta stop playing with the new HDTV I guess. It's distracting me from serious business. :lol:


----------

