Third Parties Making Life Tough for Bush, Kerry


PDA






NIGHTWATCH
July 7, 2004, 01:02 PM
A "fart in a hurricane" huh? :mad:

If gun owners alone voted Libertarian, the face of politics in America would change forever...


Third parties making life difficult for Bush, Kerry
By Steve Miller

THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published July 6, 2004
The Constitution Party has nominated a presidential candidate who wants to outlaw abortion. _Meanwhile, the Libertarian Party's presidential hopeful -- Michael Badnarik -- is taking pokes at President Bush, saying he is weak on gun rights._Independent candidate Ralph Nader's 5 percent in the presidential polls remains durable and reliable, even as he continues to hit obstacles in his ballot-access bids.

Third parties, the bane of the political establishment, are making things tough on Mr. Bush and Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, at least rhetorically.

Michael A. Peroutka, who accepted the Constitution Party nomination June 25, appeared last week at a rally in Seattle with former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore. Mr. Moore was removed from the bench last year after defying a federal judge's order to take down a monument of the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building. Mr. Peroutka said his first priority as president would be to outlaw abortion, followed by establishing a government that acknowledges God.

He added that government's purpose is not to provide health care or to educate children, and said such efforts are "socialist goals right out of the Communist Manifesto," said a report in the Seattle Times. _By aligning himself with Mr. Moore, the candidate seeks to garner some Republican voters who are unhappy with Mr. Bush's expansion of government and decry the country's move toward secularism.

Mr. Badnarik, aware that his party pulls more disenchanted Republicans than anyone from the left, is taking a stab at Mr. Bush's efforts to mainstream his message at the expense of issues.

Gun rights have long been among the top issues for Libertarians, and many took note when the Gun Owners of America issued an alert that Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, was considering slipping her proposal to ban semiautomatic weapons into another bill, perhaps this week.
Clearly, when an issue as major as the assault weapons ban is supported by Feinstein, [Sen. Charles E.] Schumer [New York Democrat], Bush and [Sen. John W.] Warner [Virginia Republican], it is yet another indication that both of the major parties are, in fact, the same.
The president, Mr. Badnarik said, has promised to sign a ban on semiautomatic weapons, but Republican lawmakers have prevented the measure from reaching a vote. "That Feinstein would use parliamentary procedure to slip in yet another attempt to deprive us of one of our most fundamental individual rights is not surprising," Mr. Badnarik said. "The even scarier issue is that Bush has already promised, in advance, to sign such a bill.
"Clearly, when an issue as major as the assault weapons ban is supported by Feinstein, [Sen. Charles E.] Schumer [New York Democrat], Bush and [Sen. John W.] Warner [Virginia Republican], it is yet another indication that both of the major parties are, in fact, the same." _Meanwhile, the Green Party rebuffed Mr. Nader and nominated David Cobb. Mr. Nader continues to fight for ballot access in some key states.

In Arizona, the Nader campaign last week was thwarted in its ballot access bid by two Democratic voters, who filed a lawsuit challenging the validity of a petition the campaign had submitted to get on the ballot.

"The Democratic Party is doing everything it can to keep us from getting on ballots," Nader spokesman Kevin Zeese said. "It shows a real insecurity on their part and it shows that they are not confident that their candidate can get enough votes."



http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040706-122141-4208r.htm

If you enjoyed reading about "Third Parties Making Life Tough for Bush, Kerry" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
BeLikeTrey
July 7, 2004, 01:11 PM
I just wish there was more support so they wouldn't serve as a spoiler to help Kerry win.

NIGHTWATCH
July 7, 2004, 01:18 PM
Someone here at THR once said that the Constitution Party was the LP for conservatives. When you look at their stance on abortion, I see why. :(

Outlaw abortion? Never happen. Niether will advocating God on every corner. It is a different time. And any hope the CP has is lost by alienating democrats. Unlike the LP, which is appealing to disheartened members of both parties.

2 cents.

one-shot-one
July 7, 2004, 01:28 PM
not all dem's are pro-abortion.
there are many "ethanic" christian groups
who vote dem. for "social" reasons but do not
agree with the abortion stance, this is not to say that
they would ever vote Constitution Party but abortion is not
the only voter strong hold for the dem. party.

Boats
July 7, 2004, 01:32 PM
That is some delicious irony to see a LP'er tell someone else that their party is too fringe and too into positions that "are never going to happen."

"Mr. Pot, allow me to introduce you to Mr. Kettle and his party. . . ."

NIGHTWATCH
July 7, 2004, 01:43 PM
Black kettle? :D LOL!

Funny, but not true... sorry. ;)

What political position best brings us as a nation together? Is it not tolerance? Resisting ignorance, religious or otherwise? And is not reducing government intrusion into our lives the goal? :( Whenever I hear the word "BAN", it just becomes another calling to an already violating government machine.

If voting for the CP is a persons way of thinking, I say go for it. Im just thinking bout the bigger picture.

Boats
July 7, 2004, 02:01 PM
I was only speaking about the CP's and LP's common taste for pie-in-the-sky positions, not their means or goals.

MrAcheson
July 7, 2004, 02:27 PM
Funny I don't see Bush shaking in his boots like Kerry is over Nader.

halvey
July 7, 2004, 02:29 PM
If gun owners alone voted Libertarian, the face of politics in America would change forever... Sure, if you could get a LP member elected to the House, they'd sit and take notice. But, in this close election, I don't think its a good idea.

davec
July 7, 2004, 02:55 PM
Unlike the LP, which is appealing to disheartened members of both parties.

no way, "progressives" HATE the libertarian philosophy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/07/02_good.html

yes, I know its democratic underground, but this article is a pretty well written and defense of the "progressive" stance against individual liberty.

I don't agree with a word of it, but its good to know what the bad guys are thinking.

also see : http://gadfly.igc.org/papers/liberty.htm


The "progressive" philosophy is anti individual liberty and therefore anathema to libertarianism.

Walking Wounded
July 7, 2004, 03:04 PM
They're still insignificant. There arent enough people who subscribe to libertarian party ideas to make them a real threat to the republicans. "fart in a hurricane" is the best way to describe their effect.

NIGHTWATCH
July 7, 2004, 03:41 PM
The truth is that most people I know dont even know who the LP is. Who? Wha? is the look I get when I start speaking about them. So from what I see, it is a matter of exposure. Because most people, once I speak on the LP platform, agree.

What I cant get around is that here I am on a 2nd Amendment forum, having to state my case for a libertarian vote to gun owners :confused:


Michael Badnarik on the 2nd Amendment:
If I have a "hot button" issue, this is definitely it. Don't even THINK about taking my guns! My rights are not negotiable, and I am totally unwilling to compromise when it comes to the Second Amendment.

Let me reiterate an axiom of my philosophy. Rights and privileges are polar opposites. A right is something that I can do without asking. A privilege is something that a higher authority allows me to do. It is utter nonsense for us to accept government permits in order to exercise an inalienable right. Allow me to point out some fallacies in the arguments frequently used by the anti-gun movement.

First, it is impossible for the Second Amendment to confer a "community right", because communities HAVE no rights. Individuals are real. Communities are abstract concepts. You can have individuals without communities, but you cannot have communities without individuals. Ergo, individuals must come first, and only the individuals that make up a community can have rights.

Second, the phrase "well regulated militia" is frequently misconstrued to mean:
a) lots of government regulations; and,
b) only the National Guard is allowed to carry guns.


It is necessary to understand the definitions common in America during the time of our war for independence. "Well regulated" used to mean "well prepared". Every man was expected to have a rifle, one pound of gun powder, and sixteen balls for his weapon. He was also expected to be ready to USE that rifle within sixty seconds of the alarm being sounded. Hence the term "minute man".

It is disingenuous for anyone to promote the argument that "militia" refers only to the National Guard in light of the fact that the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, and the National Guard wasn't formed until the early 1900's. This argument is totally without merit, unless you want to imply that our founding fathers were able to predict the future.

I sincerely believe that statistical evidence supports the idea that crime increases exponentially wherever gun control is instituted as the governing policy. Washington DC, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles have the strictest gun control policies in the United States. The cities with the highest murder rates are Washington DC, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. It doesn't take a PhD to be able to draw the proper conclusion from this evidence. England and Australia have recently instituted strict gun control measures, and both countries have seen the statistics on violent crime quadruple. In contrast, I am told that the city of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a municipal ordinance that requires homeowners to have a firearm available. Home invasions have dropped to less than 10% of their original rate, indicating to me that criminals value their lives more than they value your property.

I have no doubt that members of the anti-gun crowd would be happy to offer statistical data which appears to contradict the numbers I have just mentioned. Even if they could, their alternate statistics are not enough authority to strip me of my inalienable right to keep and bear arms. My rights are non-negotiable. I don't care if someone else doesn't like it. I don't care if they toss and turn at night, anxiously worried about what I might do with my firearm. My rights are not predicated on whether or not you LIKE what I'm doing. You only have a complaint when I present a "clear and present danger", which is not the case if I have my firearm in a holster.

Repealing unconstitutional gun control laws will be one of my first priorities as President of the United States.

Why would / should I have to push this? Makes no sense. http://beaty625.com/rblicons/headscratch.gif

The truth marches on ... http://66.96.177.64/picture_hosting/web_pages/paternoster/walking.gif

Standing Wolf
July 7, 2004, 07:25 PM
We need at least four or five political parties, all yelling and screaming and hopping up and down and slugging it out in a truly serious way for votes. Competition is a good thing, which explains why the Republicrats and Democans are so vehemently opposed to it.

fix
July 7, 2004, 07:27 PM
If gun owners alone voted Libertarian

If pigs had wings

Because most people, once I speak on the LP platform, agree.

But what exactly do you tell them? Do they all just love that open borders policy, or is it a case of "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!!!" while you wax poetic about guns and taxes?

Michigander
July 7, 2004, 07:39 PM
"The Democratic Party is doing everything it can to keep us from getting on ballots," Nader spokesman Kevin Zeese said. "It shows a real insecurity on their part and it shows that they are not confident that their candidate can get enough votes."
And it shows a real disdain for "democracy" as well.


Do they all just love that open borders policy, or is it a case of "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!
As opposed to the border policy we have now?

fix
July 7, 2004, 07:43 PM
Why would / should I have to push this?

Because it has strings attached...like this:

It was because of American troops in Saudi Arabia, lethal sanctions on Iraq, support for states in serious violation of International Law, and siding with Israel in its dispute with the Palestinians to the tune of more than $3 billion per year in taxpayers' funds that 3,000 innocent Americans paid the ultimate price on September 11, 2001.

Blame America first. Where have I heard that tripe before?

:barf:

fix
July 7, 2004, 07:45 PM
As opposed to the border policy we have now?

I don't know anyone who likes the lax policy we have now? Why on earth would we want the Libertarian policy that is several magnitudes worse?

Bartholomew Roberts
July 7, 2004, 07:52 PM
What I cant get around is that here I am on a 2nd Amendment forum, having to state my case for a libertarian vote to gun owners

Well, I imagine some (like myself) find the LPs view on foreign policy and terrorism to be incompatible with real world principles even though I share a lot of libertarian ideas.

Also, the fact is that the LP needed to lay the groundwork for this election eight years or so earlier and they didn't. As a result, Badarnik is not going to win this election. At best, he can play a spoiler and throw the election to Kerry. This may or may not result in a more libertarian minded Republican party depending on how the Greens and Nader do by comparison.

If playing the spoiler is what it takes to change policy, then I am OK with that; but not this election with this Democratic candidate and an ongoing war.

If gun owners alone voted Libertarian, the face of politics in America would change forever...

Something like 1/3 of gun owners voted for a guy who was promising handgun registration and licensing of guns in the last election. If gun owners ever voted as a bloc for any philosophy, it would be THE philsophy of America.

fjolnirsson
July 7, 2004, 09:32 PM
followed by establishing a government that acknowledges God.

Whose God? My God? Or your God? Maybe somebody else's God? Yaweh? Allah? How about Wodan?

The problem with "recognizing God" is that not everyone recognizes one particular god. If the government "recognizes God", do all the atheists get deported? My ancestors were well known for throwing missionaries overboard. We don't need a holy war in America. We already have one in Iraq.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the pledge, or the ten commandments, or crosses on the town seal. I think stripping Christmas from schools is silly.
I just ignore what I don't like. It doesn't affect me. I do get a little peeved when I can't go out for coffee on Christmas day. But that's because I forget it's Christmas until I'm driving around a deserted city.

I think things were just fine before folks started getting all offended about religion, one way or another. But I don't want the Government shoving somebody else's god down my throat, either. Mine serve me well, thank you.

Just my opinion.

If you enjoyed reading about "Third Parties Making Life Tough for Bush, Kerry" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!