The election is in five days. I find myself hoping more and more that the president won’t win. It is the second time in about a decade that a voted for someone, then four years later wished fervently that someone would be voted out of office. In 2000, I voted for the Republican because he seemed less of a jerk than his Democratic opponent, and I didn’t want to vote for a third party candidate that year. I’m not even sure a third party candidate was on the ballot in my state for the 2000 election. By 2004, I regarded my president as an incompetent criminal, and hoped so much that people would not succumb to incumbency bias and post-9/11 insecurity. George W. Bush won, and four long years turned into eight. I had not seen such poor leadership in my lifetime, and I have been alive a long time by now.
In 2008, I most certainly would not vote for the Republican candidate, as much as I liked McCain as an individual. He has served his country as well as any man. I did not like the Libertarian candidate, Bob Barr. That left the golden tongued Obama, the One, man of the hour. I knew that sheen would be off six months after his inauguration, and I knew he would be highly progressive in his policy orientation. No matter. I wanted to be a part of history, and I figured institutional constraints would hold his progressive leanings in check.
Then he passed the health care bill in the most bizarre, corrupt and dishonest process one can imagine in a democracy. I wasn’t there, but from appearances the president sat down with Nancy Pelosi and they decided they were going to do this thing. Harry Reid gave his blessing. The three of them decided to have their way with the country. They learned what the country thought in the 2010 midterm elections. I wish the anti-Democratic sentiment in 2012 were as strong as the anger one could feel in 2010. Perhaps it is, but we can’t see it because Mitt Romney isn’t in such a good position to lead voters in this matter. After all, he sponsored the model for the Affordable Care Act in Massachusetts.
Now we enter the last five days. Obama deserves to be voted out of office for the Affordable Care Act, and for that legislation alone. He is responsible for other policies and political results that warrant retiring him, but the health care legislation is enough. When you vote on November 6, vote against coercive health insurance, whether it originates with a Republican in Massachusetts, or with Democrats Washington. Vote for Gary Johnson. We have a good, capable Libertarian candidate this year. Give him your support. As Johnson says, “The only wasted vote is a vote for someone you don’t believe in.”
Steven Greffenius authored Revolution on the Ground and Revolution in the Air, both available at Amazon.
Read Full Post »
Posted in 2008 Elections, Libertarian Online Community, Libertarian Party, tagged Andre Marrou, elections, Elections '08, Federal Election Commission (FEC), Knappster, Libertarian Party, mainstream media, major party, media, media coverage, newspaper, nomination, politics, POTUS '08, presidential election, presidential nomination, primaries, primary election, third party, third party candidate, Thomas Knapp, Tom Knapp, voter support on 2008.03.14 |
Leave a Comment »
I found this entry on Thomas Knapp’s blog, Kn@ppster, and found it quite interesting. Here is an excerpt; you can read it in its entry in its entirety at the link:
I’m not one for silver bullets—no one thing will put third party candidates into contention for the presidency—but some changes just make sense. One of those changes is nominating earlier. My recollection is that the Libertarian Party used to nominate its presidential candidates the year before the election. Andre Marrou was nominated for president in 1991. Ron Paul was nominated in 1987. And so on, and so forth. It was only in 1996 that the LP moved its nominating convention into the year of the election itself.
Late nominating conventions handicap third parties. We can’t expect the kind of pre-nomination media coverage that “major party” candidates get. The sooner a party positions itself behind a nominee, the sooner that nominee has access to the party’s full pool of presidential contributors and can get to work reaching beyond the party to the American public. It’s all well and good to hope that a pre-nomination third party candidate will “break out” and catch the mainstream media eye … but it seldom works out that way.
I think Tom Knapp makes a very good point. As far as I can see, the only downside to nominating earlier is that third parties won’t get any media attention at all during the primaries. Right now they don’t get much, but it does get them at least mentioned in many newspapers.
Then again, can the third parties overcome that negative, and list their presidential nominee on the primary ballot, as just one candidate for that office? I’m honestly not sure. If so, it would look in the press as if that one candidate has a great deal of support within the party, rather than as it is now when it appears to the public that each candidate receives a little support here, and a little support there. Making third party candidates appear to have overwhelming support during the primaries can only be a good thing.
On the other hand, many third party voters wouldn’t even bother to vote during the primaries, if they knew their candidate had already been chosen, so there may be no reason to mention them at all in the mainstream media.
It’s a complicated issue, and one which should be thoroughly explored.
Originally posted on Adventures In Frickintardistan
Read Full Post »