I must admit that the Libertarian party is very attractive to me. I love their stance on the bill of rights and their consistency when it comes to most issues. While I have a problem with a few of their beliefs(i.e.-lack of addressing how to deal with corporate corruption) I would say that I've been tempted to switch my affiliation to Independent or Libertarian. Will let you know if I pull a Jeffords in the future.

Question for debate:

1.)Other than the two major candidates(Bush & Kerry) if you had to choose a third candidate(an independent,third party, or undecleared candidate) who would you vote for and why?

Since my state, Washington, was locked up for Gore last time and unless Bush is winning by a huge margin, likely will be solid for Kerry this time, I'm probably going to do the same as last time: vote for the one I agree with most, knowing it won't affect the outcome. That would be Libertarian.

OTOH, if my vote were going to actually choose the next President, I'm not sure I could do that. 'Tis a dangerous world we live in these days, and I can no longer support the LP's isolationist stance on foreign policy. On that issue, I agree with Bush more than anyone. The problem is I can't stand Bush's domestic policy, which IMHO isn't conservative at all in the most important way to me: shrinking the size of governement..

Ideally, I'd draft Jerry Pournelle and make him President, though he wouldn't want the job. Or resurrect Barry Goldwater - this Goldwater quote sums up my philosophy of government perfectly:



And the best I could realistically get? I'd like to see Jesse Ventura run. Or another libertarian-leaning pro-choice pro-gun centrist. I think someone like that could just possibly duplicate Ventura's Minnesota win on a national scale. Of course, that would just throw it to the House, which would be chaotic but a good lesson.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ntura_president

Jesse Ventura in 2008.
I'll start collecting signatures this friday
I'm serious!
If he does nothing else just think of the shrill screams of indignation from the rally monkeys on cable news networks.

"THE END OF CIVILIZATION IN AMERICA"

Who would the running mate be?
I think his candidacy would at least make the presidential debates fun to watch. It would also be impossible to shut him out of the debates because he KNOWS how to work the media.
I think he'll bring good ideas to the table.

I'm a Green, so I'd like to see who they nominate for pres.

If they decide not to nominate someone this year (over Nader 2000 guilt) I'll either write in Kucinich or vote Nader. Kerry's way too centrist for me. Like Izzadari, if I lived in wing state, however, my voting would have to be different. I'd most likely join the Anyone But Bush crowd.

Jesse Ventura...hmmmmmmmm.....very intriguing. I read both of his books and absolutely loved what he had to say. I'd love to see him run as well, because it would just really tick-off the inside the beltway media and pundits. It would kind of be like having Andrew Jackson around again!!

Where do I sign? I have been thinking of penciling in Jesse Ventura for a while now. Ventura is the only centrist out there who can hold his ground as far as I am concerned. As far as 2008 goes, here is my prediction for presinator candidates: Ahnold Schwarzenegger for the pubs (there is just too much Reaganesque sentimentality in this) and Hilary Clinton for the dems (likewise for Clintonesque sentimentality). This is of course contingent on the inevitable Constitutional Amendment that will need to be passed to allow for a foreign born presidential candidate to run. I think it is now or never for 'The Body', under these circumstances; he will split the pubs if he runs against Ahnold (this is something they wont allow after 1992, and the result will be complete character obliteration)

I would love an "electable" alternative to Kerry. I'm not crazy about him but I guess I'm in the ABB camp.

The one person I would campaign for in a heartbeat is John McCain. I voted for him in the 2000 primaries and I'd vote for him again.

I'm pretty nonplussed about the idea of Jesse Ventura as a presidential candidate.

Doc

If I was old anof, I would run.

Also, from what I gathered on the Net, the Libiarians are the fastest growing third party! I in my opinion they still have some isues for work out.

At the current time, I don't vote. If I did, it most likely would be Libertarian, unless Kerry seemed to pull the ticket in Georgia and make it close (I doubt that though).

However, not to get this off topic, but if Jesse Ventura runs in 2008, I WILL register to vote again. While I'm not a Minnesotan, nor have I been there, nor have I discussed at length a Minnesotan's view of Ventura as a political figure and what he did for Minnesota, I would still vote for him. I mean, he couldn't be any WORSE, could he?

The only person I'd cross party lines for would be Wesely Clark. The only Dem candidate who focused on a solution not blame like *ahem* some people.

Ventura would be fun to see, but his cred needs to be way more positively established. I'd like to see where he stands on all sorts of issues.

McCain would be a good bet for 2008, he's got the experience I like.

As for my governor, AHHNOLD, it would be intresting to see a Republican with Democratic family ties run. But I think that the amendment won't be passed by '08, if at all.

Long story short. Clark or McCain... hell..why not...


CLARK/McCAIN 2008! or

McCAIN/CLARK 2008!

"... if you had to choose a third candidate ..." I am taking this exactly as it is stated. I would vote for Nader.

Now let's be clear: I detest the guy and his policies. But even though I disagree with Bush's policies on various areas (notably, I don't like his tendency to favor policies that try to make Christian values into law--even though I have nothing against Christian values personally), I do not think that the choice between the two major candidates is "six of one or half a dozen of the other". I have a clear preference for Bush over Kerry, despite him not being even close to ideal in my opinion. Thus, I would not vote for a third party candidate, even if he suited me perfectly, because I am enough of a realist to know that in the present state of American politics, he could not win. A vote for a third party candidate is in effect a vote for the major candidate of the opposite persuasion.

Hence my choice. If I had to vote for a third-party candidate, it would be Nader. That would be a vote for Bush. Who is my choice, after all.

For those of us looking toward the long term and not just this election (and again in '08, and again in '12, etc) some of see voting for a third party that reflects our values is helping that party to grow -- the benefits might not be immediate, but the seeds have been planted.

Hardly anyone had ever heard of the Green Party until 2000 -- now there are 44 state and/or local Green Parties across the nation.

As the Dems continue to move right with every election, the Greens will pick up disenfranchised progressive voters and eventually we'll outgrow this outdated, bought and paid for two-party (morphing into one-party) system.

Same can be said for the Libertarians as the Repubs move more in step with the Christian Right.

Harry Browne, the last most credible Libertarian. Not sure who they are nominating this year, but I may vote for them anyway, as long as Illinois isn't too close. Last time I might have voted for Colin Powell if he was running.

"Anybody but Kerry"

Browne isn't running this time. I believe the front-runner for the LP nomination is Gary Nolan, a libertarian talk radio host. I'm not familiar with him in particular, but if the LP nominates him, I'm sure he'll be libertarian enough; the LP has faults but lack of ideological purity isn't one of them. And as a talk radio host, I'm sure he'll be able to articulate the message. Credentials to actually govern don't matter since there's no chance of winning.

Izdaari - I loved the Goldwater quote!

By that you can rightly deduce I am a conservative, tho more accurately a "constructionist", one who would rather we went back to the letter of the Constitution, and forget all this social engineering to which we pretend.

I can't vote for Kerry - No man who turned his back on 1,200 US POW/MIA's who were all multiply sighted, alive, as late as 1989, regardless of the motivation should ever hold the position of Command In Chief.

I cannot vote for Bush, either. For the first time in my life someone has made me feel like, "This is not the country I was born in. This is not the direction we should be going. I'm just glad my father never saw this day."

At this point it is my intention to write in the name of Congressman Ron Paul for President. I know, every time I say that everyone says, "Who's he?" Well, if you want to read what he's written I would point you towards Ron Paul Archives for a look at his thinking.

Now, if Ed MacMahon and Dick Clark showed up at my door, and gave me my choice of what I would like to see happen?

The republican party would, at their convention, drop G.W. Bush and his whole gang of thieves, and draft Colin Powell whether he wants the job or not. For that I would even rejoin the Republican party.
_________________________________

A small aside on the concept of "throwing away your vote".
IMO, not possible. Well, not probable. If through you own research, thoughts and feelings, arrive at a person you wish to hold the office, and vote for them; How is your vote wasted?

What I think they mean is they consider their cast vote wasted if the person does not win. If you turn it around then you should only vote for the winner, in that case, since by that measure all votes cast for anyone but the winner are wasted.

I have to tell you that the first time I voted for President, it was for Ronald Reagan. The way the press treated him during that campaign made him look like some nut wandering the streets with, of all things a flag in his hand ("how old fashioned! How uncouth!"). From the press, I had the impression I was mostlikely voting for a loser with no chance. So glad I did.

The idea is, a free people, making their voice heard. Stick to that idea and vote your true choice!

Ron Paul for President, 2008!!!!!!!!
Let him win the Republican nomination!
If, I was older -- i would run myself.


Really, we may need to impeach President Bush.

Unfortunately I don't think the Republican party is anywhere close to having a serious go with either Ron Paul or Colin Powell...

sigh.

I don't vote. I don't agree with the system, and see it as corrupt. I don't approve of the system. by voting I am participating in the corrupt system. by participating in the system I am validating it. by validating it I would be I am in complete oppisition to my original posistion of saying the system is corrupt and needs to be completly changed (meaning stripped down completely and rebuilt from the ground up) elections and trying to fix the system through voting is like trying to fix a knocking rod in an engine by changing the oil.

that being said if I DID vote, I would want to vote for Leonard Peltier of the peace and freedom party.

O.K., could we agree that stripping down the whole thing would be something that in all likelihood, will not occur? In light of that, are there options that would allow you to make your viewpoint and at the same time, have some practicality to it? Some have argued that you should be able to vote for a "none of the above" option on the ballot that would wipe out a slate of candidates should NOTA get the majority vote. Some advantages ar listed by a NOTA group:



The bolded section is highlighted by me to show that those are not happy with the current system would have a say in matters. You can check out the above listed and more at the Voters for None of the Above website.

Gettin back to the topic of discussino; if you could vote NOTA in November, would you do so as your second(or best) option?

Michael Badnarik is the libertarian's candidate. However, going to his site, I can't find the issues and his stances on them. Is the libertarian party that solid that every cadidate believes and touts the exact same thing like the democrats seem to do?

I have always been interested in the Libertarian Party's line of policies, except the drug thing and now the what I see a dovish aproach to international issues.

J. C. Watts of Oklahoma.
Ron Paul of Georgia.

...but I'll be happy with Bush.

Just a little point of clarification - Ron Paul is a U.S. representative from Texas, not Georgia (as much as I wish we could claim him as our own!! ).

I think I'm going to "throw my vote away" this election and vote for the Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik. "Why" would I do this? Well, primarily it's because I am completely and utterly disgusted with the sports-team attitudes of the Republicans and the Democrats. I'm sick of them acting like their leadership is a tournament to be won and the opponents are people to be squashed. We have to stop acting like we don't all have to live with each other in the end. The Libertarians happen to share many of my personal philosophies which is why I choose them over other third-parties.

I know voting for Badnarik won't resolve much in the short term. In fact, I am pretty annoyed with the Libertarian leadership and their lack of, well, leadership. I guess that's always going to be a problem with a party that focuses on personal responsibility, though. My concern that our country move away from the two-party competitions outweighs my annoyance with the loose leadership of the Libertarians. My vote for Badnarik will be my protest against the Republicans and Democrats.

In the end, I couldn't tell my (currently non-exsistent) children that I voted for either Bush or Kerry. I couldn't tell them I cared about their future that little. Votes just aren't for the short term. Their effects last for generations. Vote wisely.

Edited to add for slowtime9: Badnarik on the 'Issues'

The only major thing I have With Michael Badnarik is the issue of Gay marriage.
I'm mainly against it on religious, statistical, and scientific points.

But one thing I agree on; we do NOT need reverse discrimination.

Although I detest the Bush Administration, I cannot in good conscience vote for John Kerry, whom I believe has proven himself to be as weak a candidate as Al Gore. Kerry's votes for the Patriot Act, the Iraq War Resolution, and Welfare Reform show him to be woefully out-of-step with my political philosophy. For me, a vote for Kerry is almost akin to a vote for Bush.

You can likely predict from the above that my vote, alternative or not, will go to Ralph Nader. But this topic brings up an important plank in Nader's platform: electoral reform.

Those of you who know Nader's views know that he wants to overhaul the electoral system in this country to lessen the negative impact of winner-take-all presidential elections. The electoral college would be wiped out in favor of direct popular elections under Nader, but more importantly, Ralph supports Instant Runoff Elections.

Basically, under such a system, voters would be allowed to make their first choice for President, and then be given a second choice. If the first votes were counted and no candidate got a clear majority, the second choices would be counted and factored in. In this fashion, the last three presidential elections (in which no candidate got 50% of the vote) would have been decided with a much clearer picture of whom America wanted to lead us. And many more people would have been happy with, or at least confident in, the results.

Electoral Reform is just one of the many issues on which I agree wholeheartedly with Ralph Nader. You may call me a spoiler for voting for him (even though I'm in safely-blue California), but Ralph earned my vote. And giving my tepid support to anyone else would be the real waste of my precious political voice.

Jefferson Smith

Just a question for you, and one that I believe needs to be asked since it would come up when such an unlikely event would occut-that being, a third party candidate winning the presidency. Question is--If Nader were to be elected, how effective would he be on getting the congress behind his plan for electoral reform(or any reform for that matter) since in order to get anything done, there has to be a working relationship with people. If congressmen have a bad view of the president or think someone's too pushy, those people are stuck in the muck of politics and their agenda dies. That is the problem-you can have the greatest sounding platform in the world. You could have the perfect anecdote to every social ill, but if you don't get along with both democrats and republicans, your agenda will not be passed. Are the democrats and republicans going to cooperate with a guy who just badgers them and tells them how corrupt and evil they are? I ask this rhetorically, but I would dare say that Nader wouldn't win popularity contests on the hill.

Thanks Jamie for the link. It hasn't been updated that much aside from the last two "papers". I am still waiting to see what he has to say on the international issues.

Currently the major issue that will effect my vote will be the stance on the "war". If they even remotely seem weak or wishy washy in the stance on this war they won't get my vote. Kerry and Nader to me seem very weak on the subject and the libertarian party seems very stand-offish.

I am hopefull for the 2008 election though, rumors are running around already. Mcain/Watts ticket.. talk about a strong ticket!

I'm voting Badnarik. The only other candidate I can seriously consider is Michael Peroutka, but Badnarik is closer to my views. One thing I don't like about Badnarik, and the LP is general, is an unwillingness to use military force against Al Qaeda. I am a non-interventionist myself, but when an organization attacks your country, that is an act of war. And "police actions" aren't going to cut it. Going after Al Qaeda requires military force, and thats something Gary Nolan understood, but not Badnarik. Another thing I don't like about him is his apparant weakness on defense. He only wants to cut defense slightly, but he is opposed to a missile defense and strong borders, which I think are absolutely necessary if we're going to become isolationist again. However, one thing that makes him better than some other libertarians in my view is his anti-abortion stance. He thinks it should be illegal, but that it should be left to the states. Which is exactly my view. He also isn't an anarcho-capitalist, and thinks that it is the states purpose to provide for defense, law enforcement, and transportation. Which is also my view.

He spoke at my college a couple months ago, and he seems like a down-to-earth and likeable guy. He's a good speaker also. I think if we could somehow get more voters to be aware of him, he could do really well. Would've been better with Nolan or Russo, but Badnarik is acceptable.

Here's more on his positions:

http://www.vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=MTX77838

In reply to nebraska29's question (quoted as follows):



I think that this is a good question, and one that requires answers from two possible viewpoints.

The first viewpoint would be from someone who sees a vote for Nader as a "protest" vote against the status quo. To such a person, Ralph has no chance whatsoever of winning the election, and therefore only his progressive platform matters at all. I personally don't agree with this argument, because a vote cast solely against a candidate loses half its value. I would have trouble voting for someone whom I didn't view as a desirable candidate, which is exactly why I can't bring myself to vote for John Kerry.

The other viewpoint is easier for me to take, and in my opinion has far more merit. You are correct to point out that a president needs to work constructively with members of Congress to get the legislation he wants passed. An argument can also be made that sniping at one's rivals is of no help when one needs those rivals to advance one's agenda. I admit that Ralph has been quite abrasive toward Democrats and Republicans alike over the last decade. But Ralph has so far only been accusatory as a candidate, which is of course an accepted reality in American politics.

In so many cases, campaigns are fought bitterly right up until Election Day, with rival parties depicting each other in the most unflattering light possible. Ralph's attacks on the character of the two established parties are a far cry from the all-too-common personal assaults on candidates and their public and private lives these days. Once the votes have been counted and one candidate emerges as the winner, divisive rants are eschewed in favor of more conciliatory rhetoric, and pledges are made on all sides to work together in accordance with the will of the People.

In 2001, after barely losing the controversial and hotly contested Presidential Election, Democrats in Congress declined the role of obstructionists, instead choosing to rebuild burned bridges by negotiating with President Bush to pass his all-important Tax Cut and No Child Left Behind legislation. Three years later, Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is working quite ably with a liberal Democratic legislature in California, after daily lamenting their faults during the Recall Campaign that put him in office.

The above examples show that lawmakers are often quite eager to bury the hatchet with their foes once the mudslinging stops and the business of government once again becomes the order of the day. An independent President, especially one who has as much experience pushing for new legislation as Ralph has, could likely expect friends from both parties in both Houses of Congress with whom he could work to get what he wants. We can also assume that if Ralph were victorious in the Election, he would carry more progressive politicians into office, regardless of party, on his coattails.

Moreover, if Independent Candidate Ralph Nader, currently polling below 10%, were to capture the Presidency of the United States of America less than five months from now, his mandate, regardless of his margin of victory, would be immeasurably strong. His triumph would be stunning, and I think his resultant political clout alone would break down most of the walls put up between him and his rivals by his current angry rhetoric.

If there are any other Nader supporters out there, I would love to hear any other answers to nebraska29's question. Thank you, nebraska29, for giving me a forum for my opinion.

Jefferson Smith

Welcome Noumenon! It's good to have you hear at America's Debate I'm not all that familiar with Nolan's view, but I heard about Badnarik's when he did an interview on the Art Bell program a few weeks ago. He sounds like a 1950s Taft-isolationist when it comes to Iraq. As a matter of fact, I prefer his view on Iraq to Kerrys! I feel conflicted enough about it that I might actually vote for him(and change my signature) as well. I've been really struggling with this for quite some time and that's why I posted this thread. I like the party, but I hate the candidate's view on this issue(I'm talkign about the democrats here, not the libertarians) To me, Kerry is a Hubert Humphrey clone-a democratic version of a pro-war opponent with no new vision of how to win a war, and how to end a war that is a mistake.


Thanks for the positive comments Jefferson Smith. I many people who constantly face the "pragmatics versus vague-vision" conflict all the time. I asked the question not to throw a wrench in your discussion, but to hash it out-that is one of the main reasons why I stopped dabbling in third party politics shortly after the 2000 election.