Last night’s third and final Presidential debate was the straw that finally broke this camel’s back. Overcome by a combination of Senator Obama’s presentation (and they called Bill Clinton “Slick Willie???”) and his annoyingly smirky mug in the background, and Senator McCain’s tiredly impassioned but uneven jabs at his opponent, I’ve decided that I’m going to have to vote my conscience and choose an alternative candidate. Being an American and an independent thinker, that’s my right.
I wish I could write in Mickey Mouse (I hear he registered to vote in Florida), but instead I decided to check out what is available for third party candidates. Here in Michigan, the pickings are slim. Out of the crowded field of over 11, only five are on the ballot here.
I liked parts of Ron Paul’s message, but he’s not on the ballot. For the Constitution Party, we have Chuck Baldwin, and Ron Paul has endorsed him. Baldwin is a conservative radio talk show host, but as an agnostic with a liberal bent, I’m not going to hold that against him. Sure, some people might see him as a right wing nutcase, but on many levels the man makes sense. The articles available on his web site are straight-talking and no-nonsense. I like his message. Unlike our current “popular” candidates, Baldwin isn’t promising the moon and the stars to the common man. That’s because he knows he can’t deliver.
Running for the Green Party, we have Cynthia McKinney. The tree-hugger in me likes the idea of an environmentally based candidate. The Green Party platform includes reform of government “business as usual.” In a Green Party world, there would be more than two major political parties, and elimination of the Electoral College. I, for one, think that dinosaur ought to be buried under a million years worth of silt. While some of the platform seems to be way out on the left, I favor parts of their Economic Stability Plan, which calls for true cost pricing, fair business taxes, and a reform of the banking and insurance industries. The Greens also seem to be fiscally responsible, with plans on reducing the national debt.
Ralph Nader is running again, for the Independent Ecology Party, the Peace and Freedom Party and the Natural Law Party. I will admit in front of the entire world that I have voted for Nader in the past. There are parts of his platform that are appealing, including a push to end corporate personhood, a crackdown on corporate crime and a tax on Wall Street speculators. His platform also touts the idea of a national initiative for the American people to decide on such issues as war, taxes or health care. This would hand the power back to the people, and would eliminate the need for the lobbyists and special interest groups that are crowding the halls of Congress.
Article comments
1 - Dan(Miller)
Joanne,
Part of me agrees -- a big part. Another -- smaller -- part is reminded of a sign on a trash can bearing the request, Cast your vote here for a cleaner Crudburg.
Dan(Miller)
2 - Jon Sobel
Wow... that Baldwin sounds nuttier than a, I don't know, a nutcake. (More specifically: he's living in an isolationist fantasy world that not only has never existed, but - even if it ever could have existed, it certainly can't exist in the 21st century.)
And the Obama you're seeing on TV doesn't look at all like the Obama I'm seeing. I see a calm, rational guy managing to maintain his composure in a situation of such pressure that I (and I suspect most of us) couldn't possibly hold up under.
But as for voting your conscience, I can definitely see the arguments for it. I've done it myself at times. Yet I see practical arguments against it, too. There's a fair argument to be made that people voting their conscience for Nader in 2000 caused the disastrous election of Bush.
3 - Baronius
Joanne, if there ever were a year that I could vote for a third-party candidate, this is it. But I just can't do it. They seem too self-indulgent. If you can't talk a good number of people into supporting your cause after ten years or so, you should just give it up.
There's been one successful third-party movement in this country's history, the Republican. It took an issue as big as slavery to create a new party. In our time, abortion, Vietnam, and civil rights haven't been big enough to generate and maintain a third-party movement. I can't imagine what will ever be that big.
Also, there are no third party candidates with experience. Here we are fussing over a two-year governor and a four-year senator's qualifications for office, and these other tickets want their candidates to stroll into the White House without any real background. If you want to judge Nader in terms of a protest vote, fine. But is he ready to negotiate with Russia over Ukrainian security? Not a chance.
4 - Ruvy
Joanne,
This was a very interesting article. Generally, I tended to vote for independent candidates when I lived in the States. I voted for John Anderson when he ran, I voted for Socialist Party candidates (before they became anti-Israel stooges). Once I moved to Minnesota and became active in the DFL, I voted DFL. Often, I knew the candidates in person. When I lived in Minnesota, politicians were a lot more accessible to the average Joe. If that is still true today, I cannot say.
I looked up Ralph Nader's site to see what he had to say on Israel. Essentially his stance and Obama's are identical, but Nader is an Arab who is finally venting his spleen of hate and anger on us Jews for daring to have an independent country. He hides that anger on his website, but it is there.
Typical of many Arab Christians, he does not utter a peep on the Moslem persecution of Christians in the Arab world.
I mention all this because if I had to pick the one man who has really done anything of substance for the American common man, it would be Ralph Nader. He put his ass on the line to fight for auto safety and G-d only knows how many Americans' lives he has saved. By comeparison, everyone else running for president, from Obama on down, is just a blowhard or an empty suit with nothing besides a platform or empty promises to wave.
I'm not recommending that you vote for Nader. I'm simply noting that of all the people running for president, he is the one man who has been a true benefactor to Americans.
There's a fair argument to be made that people voting their conscience for Nader in 2000 caused the disastrous election of Bush.
Jon is right about this. Given the extremely low probability that anyone other than Obama or McCain will be chosen the next president (assuming there are elections, of course), you need to think about which disaster your independent vote will more likely bring about.
As I've mentioned many times, I'm in favor of Obama. Having a real honest to goodness anti-Semite in the Oval Office will help us get rid of the traitors in Jerusalem who will bow and scrape and kiss his butt like any typical court Jew. But that is nor your problem in Michigan, is it?.
5 - Joanne Huspek
I don't know... I'm tired of the smugness in both parties. I know they are the marjority parties, but still, they have lost themselves through greed. When you think about it, mainstream Washington is full of people who think they are rock stars. Serve the PEOPLE? Bah, humbug.
Jon, that is interesting how you (and most people) view Obama, because I see the opposite. I see someone who professes to love the middle and lower classes, yet he's rich. I don't see him or Biden (or any of them) willingly giving up their money to the disadvantaged to make a real difference. Even as a "disadvantaged" mixed-blood person growing up in the late 60s, he had it pretty good. I can say that because I am racially diverse and way more economically at risk than he could ever imagine himself to be.
Ruvy, I miss that closeness that people can have with their elected officials. Last time I felt it was when I lived in Minnesota in the early 1980s. And if you think you know how the Muslim and Christian Arabs in SE Michigan are going to vote, let me know. To me, everyone is enamored of Obama, and while he's a damn good wordsmith, there are things about him that irritate me. (Beyond the smugness.)
I'd love to give McCain my vote, and he got a fair chance at it, but there's something about him too...
Most people don't want to dig deep to find out the real candidate. They just go by the surface: the race, the gender, the buzz words, if the person "looks" presidential. And I doubt that is going to change.
6 - Clavos
I had wanted to vote for the McCain ticket, and I may still do so.
I absolutely cannot bring myself to vote for Obama; there are too many aspects of what he's announced that he will do as president with which I'm in complete disagreement.
But, I am as close as I've ever been (and I've been voting in presidential elections since 1964) to simply not voting at all. I've thought about this quite a lot, and have concluded that, in other areas of my life, when confronted with what I consider to be two bad choices, I never take the lesser if not choosing either is an option. If I decide that I should make the classic "lesser of two evils" choice, then McCain will get my vote.
But, this time, I may reject both.
Or, maybe I'll vote for Mickey.
7 - Bob Vondruska
A VOTE FOR McCAIN IS A WASTED VOTE!
I applaud Joanne for looking at her options and considering a vote for a third party candidate. The notion that this is a two-party nation just doesn't fly anymore, especially when we look at the two horrible choices we have been given.
The one thing that we all know for sure is that John McCain will not only lose on election day, he will lose by a wide margin. He will lose "Bob Dole" style, which is an ugly way to lose! The tired argument that if you don't vote for McCain, Obama is going to win doesn't matter when both candidates have nothing to offer, but one is mentally unstable. When McCain loses the election, the only one to blame will be the Republican National Committee for nominating such a lame candidate, and the people who voted for him in the primary. Hopefully, more people will do like Joanne and vote for a third party candidate instead of wasting their vote on a certified loser. The only real choice for Conservatives unhappy with McCain is Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. He's the closest candidate in ideology to Ron Paul, and the only candidate who (unlike McCain), actually has a plan to save our nations' economy.
8 - Arch Conservative
I'm voting for Baldwin.
9 - Jon Sobel
Astroturf alert! (#7)
10 - El Bicho
"There's a fair argument to be made that people voting their conscience for Nader in 2000 caused the disastrous election of Bush."
Yes, but Nader wasn't the only reason Gore lost the electoral vote.
"Arch Conservative: I'm voting for Baldwin."
reinforcing Jon's comment.
11 - Jon Sobel
Joanne, I don't see how Obama's being now "rich," or having come from a background where he wasn't in utter poverty, should cause you a problem. Obama is, in fact, an avatar of what we quaintly call the "American dream" - starting from distinctly average-at-best circumstances and raising himself up to a high position in society through smarts and hard work. Yet when someone actually achieves this, he's an "elitist" and not to be trusted. (McCain and his nasty wife have 10 houses. Give or take a couple - who's counting?)
Also, there are few politicians who have expressed who they are more completely and fervently than Obama. Like him or not, what he's about is all out there for everyone to see and read - in his books, his policy statements, interviews... (speeches are the least important, they're full of rhetoric like speeches are supposed to be.) So the idea that Obama is unknown or hasn't told us what he's about... that's just patently wrong.
Clavos disagrees with Obama's policies - now that's fair game.
12 - Dan(Miller)
Ruvy says in Comment #4,
That's pretty much the way it is here in Panama today. With a total population of about 3.5 million, including many who can't vote because they are not of age or are not citizens of Panama (including me), most everyone knows the candidates or at least knows someone who does. Is there corruption? Of course there is; more or less than in the U.S.? Impossible to quantify. But good or bad, most people have a pretty good idea of for what and for whom they are voting. That's one of the reasons I am very happy to live here, even though I can't vote.Dan(Miller)
13 - Rilaly
The Republican party is caving on it's prinicples to try and get the media and the democrats to like them. The Democrats are now saying that GWB was a partisan. On foreign affairs, they may have a point, but domesstically? He let Ted Kennedy write the education bill, and I lost track of the vetoes he put forth on Congressional legislation, but if it passed four I'll be shocked. GWB did everything he could to try and get democrats to like him. McCain teamed up with Kennedy too, and Russ Feingold. Those two are the close to being the most liberal in the Senate. My point? The lines are getting fuzzy, and the time for a third party may finally be near to represent those of us who feel like we have no represenation.
14 - Baritone
I certainly do NOT consider Obama smug. I watched a split screen comparison of Obama and McCain reacting to each other during last nite's debate. Watching McCain was like watching a nervous bumble bee awkwardly moving about in his chair his face fixed with that puffy cheeked tight "I hate your guts" smile. Alternately he was either feverishly writing things down or making faces and rolling his eyes.
In contrast, Obama most often sat quietly and impassively usually with his eyes fixed on McCain. At times he would break into a small smile or even a broad grin when McCain uttered some of his stock bullshit.
By most standards, neither Obama nor Biden would be considered rich. McCain is rich. Romney is rich. Really rich.
Both Obama and Biden lived a middle class existence while growing up. Obama's so called "wealth" was made primarily from the publication and sale of his books. Biden is certainly comfortable. He has a home valued at something like 4 million bucks in Delaware, but he doesn't live extravagantly, and is certainly not rich. The Palins likely have more net worth than does Biden.
And anyhow. Do we want a president who has been unsuccessful in life? I don't.
B
15 - DaveNalle
Sure, Baldwin is nuttty as a fruitcake, but he's not nearly as nutty as McKinney and the Green Party. Take a look at their platform. It's a more detailed version of the Communist Manifesto. Truly scary.
If you want to vote for a third party candidate, take a stand on principle and vote for Bob Barr.
Dave
16 - Joanne Huspek
Baritone: Do we want a president who has been unsuccessful in life? I don't.
Well, if you measure your "success" by the amount of money you make, I guess we as Americans tend to elect "kings" to high office. Of course, nowadays they are the only ones who could afford to do it. If your measure "success" by being the cause du jour, I guess we as Americans tend to elect "beauty queens" to high office.
How do you explain Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter getting into the Oval Office? Neither were very well known nationally before seeking office, much less internationally.
I'd like to think of my elected officials as being at least as smart as I am, and sadly, I haven't seen that much lately.
17 - Dr. Juliann Mitchell, PhD
Joanne,
You never disappoint. Thanks for a well thought out and certainly timely article. I am giving you my vote for today. Well done!
Juliann
18 - Baritone
Joanne,
Actually, Obama is pretty damn smart. He didn't rise to where he is through stupidity. He has excellent academic credentials and has been successful in both the private and public sector.
Further, he has overseen a huge, well organized and by any measure a successful campaign for nearly 2 years.
You are certainly free to "vote your conscience" as you choose. Personally, I do look upon 3rd party votes as wasted, but I would never suggest that you or anyone should not do so as you all have your own rationale for your decision.
B
19 - Condor
"If you can't talk a good number of people into supporting your cause after ten years or so, you should just give it up." -- Baronious
Historically there's a lot of people who would completely disagree with that point. It may be a pertainent statement in today's America, by those from a certain cut of cloth, if you will. But it is certainly not shared everyone and goes against many schools of thought.
Apply that defeatist attitude to, let's say saving towards retirment. Now there's a good plan.
Persistence in science and medicine has helped us understand and work towards cures. "Well" said Jonas Saulk, "can't figure this polio shit out, might as well jsut give it up"...
Are you a defeatist, or just want those to persist in advancing their school of thought to shut up?
20 - Condor
"especially when we look at the two horrible choices we have been given." Someone...
Some thoughts I've been having lately
I still can't believe those two actually made it this far. So what do I do?
I have voted in the past for candidates so they could get their percentages and pay their debts off. But it never really worked. And Joanne, I have voted Nader more than once. I even voted Carter, because he was an is an honest person, not a good leader, but an honest person and after Nixon that seemed refreshing.
Speaking of Nixon, did anyone notice he didn't get mentioned during the convention? He was such a paradox. One one hand he did some incrediable things as president, on the other he completely destroyed faith in the office... for doing things that had probably always been done (and continues). He just got caught.
Nader is a great choice, a bit eccentric and also afoul of the press. The press, late night, everybody gives Nader shit. But he's sharp.
It's amazing how brainwashed the voting public can get. And fools will speak that the media has nothing to do with it. Bull! The media has proven time and time again they it is a powerful tool in any politicians tool bag. If they have the media with them, the chattel will follow along and vote whomever or what ever the media has been programming. That's scary.
How was Ross Perot able to get where he did and effectively split the vote ensuring Clinton's 1st victory? Up until Bill Clinton the dems had absolutely horrible candidates but it really took Perot to make it happen for Bill. That was a wierd election.
Vote 3rd, why not. If you believe the media, and if you read this blogsite Obama is a shoe in. I hope he makes it and fucks things up real good. We need that. McCain is a lousy choice as well, but the press and late night have been pounding his age issue so much, anyone over 40 will probably suffer the continued legacy of age discrimination that is sure follow. So vote 3rd party, the fix is in. But.... the percentages are like the last 3 or 4 elections.... split almost down the middle. That's kind of scary too; Don't you think?
21 - Clavos
How do you explain Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter getting into the Oval Office? Neither were very well known nationally before seeking office, much less internationally.
Clinton was actually middle class in the fiscal sense when hew assumed office, and had not made much more by the time he left office. Since then, however, he has become a multimillionaire; the last figure I saw a few months ago had him at 30-something million, from speaking fees and book deals.
Carter was better off than Clinton when he assumed office, but most of his net worth was in land (the peanut farm in south GA). I haven't seen any figures on him lately, but I imagine that like most former presidents, he makes a good living from speaking and writing, and like Clinton, is probably pretty well off by now.
22 - Joanne Huspek
Clav, that's what I liked about Carter and Clinton. When they first came on the scene, they were down to earth and not of the Beltway, meaning they really appealed to the masses. Now, of course, both are well-to-do. I think part of that is the office. Once you get into the Beltway, you tend to make money. Obama and McCain, on the other hand, have had pretty cushy lives in comparison. They are both "golden" in their own way.
Despite the odds of picking the better of two evils or my vote being responsible for tipping the scales, I'm still going to have to vote third party. Like Condor, I think Obama is the shoe-in, but despite that I have to vote my conscience.