Posted on 05/13/2002 8:24:05 AM PDT by sheltonmac
Well...the Republicans are destroying the constitution more slowly than the Democrats....that's a plus isn't it?(sarcasm)
Yeah, that's for sure...higher education does have alot to answer for.
Nader certainly seems to be a socialist and it seems clear that environmentalism is just a lever to ram more socialism down our throats.
No, that's not it.
You said exactly what should be done in the beginning. You pointed to Ron Paul. He ran as a Libertarian. Lost. He ran as a Republican. Won! Get it?
This third-party thing is akin to reinventing the wheel. Monetarily and logistically it is unfeasible.
What should be done is run more Ron Paul-types as REPUBLICANS, not third-party candidates. I like the guy a lot, although I deplore his foreign policy stance.
Look at the late '60s and early '70s. What did the socialists do to the Democrat party? Mmmmm, hmmmm... They got far more of what they wanted by going the RAT route than they ever could be running as socialists.
Don't reinvent the wheel. Use the avenues that are already in place.
Be that as it may, get the candidates you want in place and use the means available to seat them in office. To me, getting elected is first and foremost. The rest in conjecture. We can rant and rave all we want about how bad the two-party system is, but, if we don't get elected, all else is totally moot.
Ruin whose victory? The victory of Republican socialists. Bring it on!! Though I am very disappointed to hear of the LP's attempts to assasinate Bob Barr over the drug issue. Bob Barr is one of the best friends of liberty in the House.
I was a county and state LP chairman for a while, and you can take it from me: nothing in politics is quite as grueling as trying to get people to work for a hopeless campaign. Most LP members get together for free donuts and coffee, and an evening's abstruse argument. Asking them to work is as near to self-defeating as makes no difference.
Eventually, I decided that third-party campaigns weren't doing any good for the cause of freedom, and might be doing some harm -- for sure they were doing me some harm -- and I declared my days as a third-party activist to be over. Life's been a lot more pleasant since then.
Still, I have yet to be convinced that voting for someone as far distant from my own principles as the candidates of the majority parties usually are is a good idea. One steals my liberty wholesale, the other steals it retail. Neither really conceals his intent to steal. On even the most fundamental matters of Constitutionally guaranteed rights -- what part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" could they possibly misunderstand? -- no majoritarian candidate is willing to take an absolute stand.
Of the original ten Amendments to the Constitution, only the Third (no quartering of troops) has yet to be grotesquely violated and nullified, with no penalty to the nullifiers. Yet the Constitution and its Amendments are the "supreme law of the land," transcending all other legislation. Why is it that the supreme law is never enforced upon those persons whom it was specifically designed to limit?
Ask a majoritarian candidate if he believes that the Constitution means literally what it says, and is willing to stand by it letter for letter. You'd have more of a shot at getting him to subscribe to a literal reading of the Bible, including the part in Leviticus where it says to stone homosexuals and adulterers. Yet they all have to swear to preserve, protect and defend it! Why repose trust in such people? What good does it do the country to vote for liars and oathbreakers?
So, in the absence of a constructive alternative, I don't vote. And I've discovered something remarkable: that is what terrifies the minions of the majority parties. They have a sense that the total vote tally is a gauge of the perceived legitimacy of the two-party system, of the parties themselves, and of government in these United States -- and I think they're right.
I've taken to making it an explicit thing. "I don't vote," I say, "because none of the candidates strikes me as honest or principled. I wouldn't be willing to have them in my living room, so why would I want them to have power over me? So I'm withholding my affirmation from all of them." And you should see the faces go pale. Because each and every person in the room has been harangued about how "it doesn't matter who you vote for, so long as you vote" until it's coming out of their pores -- and now they've been given a cogent reason why the reverse is true.
George W. Bush strikes me as an honest man -- but look at the things he's done since his election. Granted, he had to promise many things to many people to get elected, but that doesn't make the promises themselves palatable; it just means that, however he really felt about those policies, as an honest politician (i.e., "one who stays bought"), he had to deliver.
Given the political power of the redistributionist paradigm, nothing will change meaningfully until we come up with an enforcement mechanism for the Constitution. Even an honest man needs a wall to put his back against, now and then, so that he can convince the pullulating mobs that screaming at him won't work. He has to be able to say, "Gee, I'd like to give you what you want, but if I violate the Constitution, I'll be guest of honor at a necktie party." When that day comes, we can expect genuinely honest men in substantial numbers to re-enter public life, where, out of distaste for the types they'd have to rub elbows with, they will not go today. And I'll return to the voting booth.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
As a member of the Constitution Party, I can say that isn't part of our platform. But whatever floats your boat...
Third party candidates are always quick to cite Jesse Ventura to bolster public perception of their chances. But I have found that the vast majority of people do not understand what made Ventura successful. He succeeded for two main reasons, neither of which applies to the vast majority of third party candidates:
1. Celebrity
The fact that he is a celebrity, not just his national wrestling and movie persona, but also from a fairly popular radio talk show in Minnesota prior to the election, was worth millions in advertising. He had name recognition and popularity among traditional voters and non-voters alike. That's not true of the vast majority of third party candidates. They would need a very expensive and very successful advertising campaign to gain Ventura level name recognition and likability.
2. Same day polling place voter registration.
In Minnesota, an unregistered voter can show up at a polling place on election day. If he has proof of residence in that voting precinct (like a driver's license, or utility bill in his name), or (hold on to your hats) if a registered voter will vouch for him, he can register and vote. Ventura drew a tremendous number of previously unregistered voters to the polls on election day. A lot of them were unregistered voters who did so on a whim. Without same day polling place registration, Ventura would not have won. Since very few other states have such liberal voter registration laws, most third party candidates would not have this advantage.
Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
Bush said goodbye to Kyoto, the World Court and yes to the Second Amendment.
Please name three or four pieces of legislation that Pat Buchanan has ever claimed responsibility for passage. [If Sarah Brady can help pass liberal legislation, Pat should be able to help conservatives.]
And while you are at it. Name three or four conservative, Constitution-believing candidates Pat Buchanan has helped push over the top to victory. [Are you going to have to admit that Jesse Jackson is more effective than Pat Buchanan?]
None of which had anything to do with signing something into law. He did, however, sign into law $26 billion more in education spending, the Patriot Act, Campaign Finance Reform, and is currently pushing for more health care legislation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.