I have heard so many people say they will hold their nose and vote for McCain because it's the better of two evils, and that a third party candidate cannot possibly win.

If you are true conservatives, you will know that one attribute of conservatism is the power and ability of the individual to create and make his own choices in life, and the chance that one may lose.

Liberals are the opposite, never taking chances, as they value security over freedom, and do not trust themselves to make their own way in the world.

If I find myself out of a job, and find that the two choices of jobs offered to me are not acceptable, I create my own job, and gamble on its vitality. We are self-starters, and don't rely on others to determine the choices we have.

So it is with the current Presidential election; if we don't like either of the two choices, we create our own candidate and take the gamble that our choice will win. It is a matter of choosing one's destiny or letting others do that for us.

If you vote for McCain and he wins, then you can look back and know that you have done your part to further us down the road of big government and socialism.

If on the other hand, you vote for a third party candidate and he loses, then you can look back and know that you tried to stem the tide, but alas failed, the outcome being the same as if you had voted for McCain.

Which vote of yours will allow you to look yourself in the mirror the day after the election and be satisfied?

Then too, there is the self-defeating mechanism of saying "A third party candidate can never win!"

If everyone dissatisfied with McCain says that to himself, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. On the other hand, if everyone dissatisfied with McCain actually votes for a third party candidate, there is at least a chance that he may win.

So do you gamble, or resign yourself to the choices others have laid out for you, whimpering "I am powerless"? Man or mouse?

Ike's comment added to his article, "Adieu to the Grand Old Party" gave me an idea.
He said:
I think that part of the "fight" is going to be educating the public about the horrible side-effects of constantly demanding that the government "do something" for them or about some problem, real or imaginary. Ceaselessly, we need to remind them with plain language and the most direct examples from history - preferably U.S. history - of the consequences of that demanding attitude. Ah, well, if it was easy ....

I have read numerous press releases given out by legislators touting the new bill they sponsored or voted for, the headlines reading something of the stock phrase: Congressman Smith has announced the passage of a bill to put two chickens in every pot!

Rarely have I seen it announced in that press release the cost or strings attached, or infringement of individual liberties involved in putting those two chickens in every pot. The constituents think (if they give it any thought at all) that: 1) someone else will pay for it, 2) the loss of personal liberty is insignificant compared to the benefit, or 3) the amount needed to pay for it is so miniscule compared to the total budget of the government that it will hardly be felt in the taxpayers' pocket.

Perhaps a way to bring the cost to the public's attention is to issue a release citing the costs of a bill without the benefits mentioned, a reverse of what the politician does.

For example: Congressman Smith has supported a bill, Senate Bill 4302x, that increases taxes by $50 million. It also restricts individuals from doing xyz on their own property. Smith, a Republican, joined with 140 Democrat congressmen to say "This bill is a landmark piece of legislation which makes the lives of Americans easier."

But never, ever mention the benefits the congressman touts. Sure, it's a bit of selective reporting, but it's not lying to the people. If they want to, they can look up the piece of legislation and find the goodies for themselves; but why help the wayward congressman in his quest for reelection?

Perhaps an enterprising individual could start a website called something like "Strings Attached", go through every daily piece of legislation and press release, and print the truth that lies beneath the magic fount.

As I watched this year's extended primary season, I had thought that the Republican Party would be turning itself around, away from the "business as usual" politics of scandal and earmarks and back to smaller government, lower taxes and support of essential conservative values, both in politics and society.  It was my thought and hope that - since I'll retire the first months of next year and will have the time - that I could become active in the GOP and work with the many others who were going to "put the party back on track".  I have been disabused of that notion quite completely.

During the last week, I have spent time talking with members of the Republican Party, both ordinary voters and officials, about what the GOP is going to do.  Now, don't misunderstand:  Governor Perry - I'm from Texas - didn't call me up and ask me to visit.  I just met informally with a handful of people who I know in the GOP, both from my local area and from Austin.  After I talked with them, I made a few notes of what seemed important to me as it related to my interest and then I sat down with a beer and thought about what I had heard from those fine people and what their words implied as well as what they meant.

The GOP has the words, the ideas, the values of limited government and conservatism written into the Party Platforms, both at the state and at the national level.  The rank and file of the GOP - many of them - are at heart the folks who would vote for Barry Goldwater were he on the ballot today; in short, they are conservatives.  The party regulars, the party leadership and the office-holders of the party, however, have been completely seduced by the relatively few years of Republican control of the Congress and of the Presidency and the power which that control gives them.  As a consequence of that, many of them have abandoned the conservative values which got them elected and are cultivating a more liberal - "moderate"? - clientèle in the GOP.

Talking with my acquaintances, listening to what they say and what they don't say, and considering what they say leads me to these conclusions:  the GOP party regulars are quite happy being in control of the local and state governments in Texas and they see no reason that they have to change at all.  I was puzzled by this as what they are doing locally seem to be contrary to many of the tenets of the GOP, both state and nationally.  I had forgotten that politicians get their "basic training" in how to behave and how to be elected and remain in office at the local level.  The state level is rather like going to a university learning how to exercise more power over a larger extent.

One antidote, of course, to that sort of organized looting of the public's trust and treasury, is to have terms limits strictly enforced.  A second would be to have the GOP enact rules or platform planks not merely denouncing "business as usual", but punishing those office-holders who violate those rules.  As one of my acquaintances said, "What planet are you from?  The people who run the GOP in Texas" - and by extension, in every state - "are not only uninterested in rules like that, but will actively and dramatically oppose anything resembling them from being adopted."  Now, since nearly all the current party regulars benefit from the present system of organized pillage and privilege, no such rule is going to be adopted, not in this century at least.

You may believe that my use of words like, "pillage", "privilege", "con game", and others like that is too strong and simply rhetorical.  I have learned, once and for all, that it isn't rhetorical.  Consider local political actions and what they are intended to accomplish.  Nine times out of ten, if you look behind the public speeches, the news articles and press releases, you will find that some politician or group of politicians is rewarding one of their party faithful (or one of their own number) for their service to the GOP.  In fact, of course, the beneficiary is being rewarded for helping the office-holder get elected or re-elected.  Who pays for those things?  Taxpayers, either directly by taxes paid to "consulting firms" and "contractors", or indirectly by having to pay higher prices - for instance - for houses because the local council helped a friend (or themselves) by denying a permit or license or a platting or a zoning change or what-have-you to a competitor.  What is that, exactly, if it isn't privilege?  Or pillage, depending on the source of the benefit.  What else could they consider us - the voters - to be, other than "marks"?  We are lied to repeatedly, fed hysterical exaggerations of this and that as truth, and then expected not to squeal as we're being made into bacon.

Enough.  You know as well as I that this is how politics is conducted across the nation, by every political party and office-holder with any authority.  That is what causes the abandonment of good, conservative values:  power, privilege, and money.  Neither of the majority parties will ever reform itself; the lure is too sweet and the abuse of power is too tempting.  Only a party which will (may? might?) reduce the power of the government at all levels has a chance to end this process before the nation, the states, and our localities are impoverished and saddled with bureaucrats and government functionaries who will make the commissars look like Sunday school teachers.  The only chance for freedom is to try a third party.

Next question:  which one?

Here is a list of websites that you might find interesting and informative.

http://swmolibertarianparty.blogspot.com/
A site by a local libertarian activist.

http://boortz.com/
A nationwide talk show host, Neal Boortz, has sound conservative principles, and a GREAT sense of humor.

http://www.reason.com/
The preeminent magazine for conservative/libertarian readers. Available online or print. I got it in the mail for a few years before I got a computer. Good reading.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/27/coburn-to-gop-stop-start-acting-like-republicans-and-follow-mccain/
Coburn, an erstwhile conservative, gets behind McCain.

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/
Pat Toomey, the Senatorial candidate in Pennsylvania who ran against Arlen Specter, is the President of Club For Growth. The RINOs threw him under the bus when he ran in the Republican primary, calling him "radically conservative" despite a very strong support among voters.

http://michellemalkin.com/
I think everyone is familiar with Michelle, her honest, probing, and intelligent articles and books.

http://www.qando.net/
A well-rounded libertarian online magazine with a variety of news, critiques, and editorials.

http://www.lp.org/
Official website of the Libertarian Party.

http://www.moderatelibertarian.blogspot.com/
Self-descriptive  - a moderate libertarian's blog.

http://www.governmentisgood.com
The liberal's site that advises people how to counter conservative arguments. Hey, we got to find out what the enemy is thinking, don't we?

http://www.gopondemand.com/
Peter J. Wir's site to placate the people tripping over themselves to get out of the GOP.

http://www.acuratings.org/
The American Conservative Union's site that rates Congressmen and Senators according to their votes. Excellent place to figure out who is and who isn't conservative, and point out potential leaders of the conservative movement.

http://www.heritage.org/
Well known conservative think tank.

http://www.cato.org/
Another well known conservative think tank.

http://www.rlc.org/
The site of the Republican Liberty Caucus. Self-described as the conservative soul of the GOP.

http://www.fee.org/
The Foundation for Economic Education — FEE — is a voice for individual liberty and responsibility, private property, free markets, constitutionally limited government and the rule of law.

http://www.constitutionparty.com/
The official site of the Constitution Party.

http://conservativehq.com/home
A site for conservative activists.

http://www.cpnys.org/
The official site of the New York State Conservative Party, the only conservative third party that has elected officials in office.

http://www.fairtax.org
The organization that promotes abolishing the anti-capitalist, redistributive income tax and instituting the Fair Tax.

I watched a good bit of the balloting, interviews, and speeches yesterday at the Libertarian Party Convention on C-Span.

While there was some fractiousness and resistance to Barr's eventual nomination, I could charitably attribute it to a couple of things. I don't think it's a major stumbling block to them being able to unite and advance their cause.

After the nomination, a reporter interviewed Christine Smith, one of the more "purist" candidates, who rather contradicted what she said in her main speech in the early morning. In that speech, she said she rejected the notion of labels within the party, such as neo-, purist, and conservative libertarians; "We are all Libertarians within the party without distinction."

However, in the interview, she was most vociferous in her denunciation of what she termed "neo-cons who have usurped the Libertarian Party"; though not directly naming Barr, I had the distinct impression that was who she meant.

I think it's a real stretch, if not just wrong, to call Bob Barr a neo-con; perhaps it's his mild support of the battle in Iraq that ires the purist, isolationist Libertarians and leads them to call him a neo-con. Nevertheless, that's one faction of the LP.

The second fracture, though not as pronounced or fatal, is on a more personal level.
The 6th ballot was between Bob Barr and Mary Ruwart, and he won by a slim margin (324-276), though in majority politics, it was a definite mandate, not a squeaker. In the first ballot, they were almost tied, Barr 153, Ruwart 152, with the remainder distributed among six others. Smith, by the way, was knocked out in the first round, with only six votes out of 600. So I might assume by that number that her "purist" faction is rather small (1%), therefore not something of great concern.

Mary Ruwart has been a candidate within the party since 1983, while Barr just joined last year - I think this reflects a division simply between those who have had a personal relationship with Ruwart for lo these many years, a familiar face, and Barr, who represents a national figure outside the party. Perhaps those who voted for him saw his nomination as a chance to expand the party recognition into the fertile field of conservatives outside the party, disenchanted with the GOP.

I half expected Dr. Mary Ruwart to get the vice-presidential nomination, but she declined to be nominated for reasons unclear to me. She strikes me as a very solid, intelligent, consistent person with whom I would be comfortable seeing as the presidential nominee.

The vice-presidential nominee is Wayne Allyn Root. I watched a couple of his speeches, and he reminds me of a salesman coach on speed, with his energy, gesticulations, and rehearsed phrases to get out the vote; almost like Howard Dean in 2004, but more likeable. Perhaps this energetic side of him is reserved for intraparty cheerleading, and when he speaks to those outside the party, he will be a bit more subdued and paced, concentrating on talking about issues rather than invigorating the converted.

The Libertarian Party is on the ballot of 48 states for the Presidential race this year, and they are working to get the other two states (West Virginia and Alabama) to include them as well; hence, not a write-in, invisible party to the average voter. A number of polls by disinterested polltakers put the percentage of people who claim to be libertarians between 12 and 15 percent, not an insubstantial chunk of the citizenry. Perhaps the presence of Barr, a nationally known figure, will boost that figure even higher before the general election.

I'm not actively advocating that you vote for him at this time, but consider a few things - if the Dems continue in their chaos, divided between the intelligentsia, blacks, the far left, the blue dogs, the evangelicals, and the unions, it will be tough for them to unite on one nominee by the general election. A hot August in Denver is going to be exciting to watch (and a good place not to go if you value your safety).

The Republicans are heading for some divisional quarrels, with Ron Paul still holding anywhere between 5% and 15% of the committed delegates in many states, and some Libertarians disenchanted with Barr saying that they will switch parties and vote for Paul in the general election. And of course, there are those conservatives who will or already have left the GOP.

It looks, therefore, that neither the GOP or the Dems will have a sizable majority bloc going into the general election; a likely scenario may be the GOP getting 35%, Dems 35%, Libertarians 25%, and 5% to write-ins of various smaller parties and Donald Duck.

I was talking with a customer yesterday who noticed my bumper sticker - Annoy a Liberal: Work, Succeed, Be Happy!

He said he had serious misgivings about McCain, but he certainly didn't want either Obama or Clinton in the White House. I suggested he vote for a third party, mentioning that I would be watching the Libertarian Convention this evening on C-Span to see what they had to say.

He said that he was drawn to the libertarian principles, but feared voting for a third candidate would ensure a liberal win.

He voiced what I had heard so many times before, and what I'm sure most of you have thought: "I would just be throwing my vote away if I vote for someone who doesn't have a chance."

I replied "But isn't that a self-fulfilling prophecy? If everyone who wanted to vote for a third party candidate says that, then that candidate DOESN'T stand a chance. If the millions of people dissatisfied with the two parties were to vote their conscience, then the third party WOULD have a chance."

He grinned and nodded; "I guess I just might vote for someone else!"

That's it people, get out there, engage, and persuade!

On a side note, Richard Viguerie of http://www.conservativehq.com was a keynote speaker at the Convention last night. Check out his site, it's quite interesting and informative.

A Tuesday fundraiser headlined by President Bush for U.S. Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign is being moved out of the Phoenix Convention Center.

Sources familiar with the situation said the Bush-McCain event was not selling enough tickets to fill the Convention Center space, and that there were concerns about more anti-war protesters showing up outside the venue than attending the fundraiser inside.

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/05/19/daily77.html?jst=b_ln_hl

 

The Libertarian Party Convention, meeting in Denver, will have their Presidential Candidate Debate from 7 - 9 PM MDT, this Saturday, 25 May 08.
Bob Barr and Mike Gravel will be debating for sure, but I don't know if there are others participating.

I have no idea whether it is being broadcast in any venue, but if it is, I'm sure it will be interesting.

If anyone reading this knows if it will be broadcast or recorded, and where it may be seen, please post the details here.
Thanks

To make it a bit more organized, please add your comments concerning Charles Baldwin and the Constitution Party here.

To start the ball rolling, here is the Constitution Party Mission Statement:

Constitution Party Mission Statement

The mission of the Constitution Party is to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity through the election, at all levels of government, of Constitution Party candidates who will uphold the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. It is our goal to limit the federal government to its delegated, enumerated, Constitutional functions and to restore American jurisprudence to its original Biblical common-law foundations.

Here is the Constitution Party's Presidential nominee Charles Baldwin's statement of what he would do as President:

http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=749

It is much too long to reprint here, but I'll sum it up as best I can:
Withdrawal from Iraq
Secure the borders and  deport illegals already here
Remove abortion from SCOTUS purview, in effect overturning Roe v Wade
End foreign aid
Withdrawal from the UN
End the NAFTA superhighway
Drill for oil in the US
Disband the Depts. of Energy and Education, among others
Abolish the income tax
Abolish the Federal Reserve

Please go read it in full, as you mustn't trust my word for what his primary issues are.

One thing that bothers me about his platform: he advocates abolishing the IRS and repealing the 16th Amendment, but also says he is against a national sales tax (Fairtax) without explaining where any revenue would come from.
The time is long past when the Federal government could rely solely on tariffs, duties, and excise taxes for its revenue.

Here is an excerpt from an article concerning Barr's other alliance with the ACLU:

http://www.friendsofliberty.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3395
BOB BARR'S LIBERTARIAN NOMINATION Would Offer Conservatives a Choice
International Politics by John Bender April 8, 2008

.....Neocons and statists in the Republican ranks have attacked Mr. Barr for joining Congressman Dick Armey (ACU record 97%) in working with the ACLU in defending the Fourth Amendment.  Even one of the smartest and most conservative talk show hosts to grace the air waves recently made the totally ridiculous statement that Congressman Barr isn’t a “real” conservative because he has sided with the ACLU in that fight. Yet it is interesting that some, maybe even most, of those who have attacked Mr. Barr for working with the ACLU on protecting the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law had no qualms about siding with the ACLU themselves to fight the McCain-Feingold attack on free speech.

These hypocrites generally neglect to mention that Mr. Barr was not just siding with the ACLU in this effort to protect the Fourth Amendment.  He was also siding with groups like the American Conservative Union, Americans for Tax Reform, the Free Congress Foundation, the Second Amendment Foundation, and other solidly conservative groups.  Nor do they mention that bedrock conservative groups like the Christian Coalition, the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, the National Association of Manufacturers, the Family Research Council, the Southeastern Legal Foundation, the Business-Industry Political Action Committee, the National Right to Life Committee, to name just a few, have also worked with the ACLU to protect a Constitutional right.

Her is the full text of an article about Bob Barr's legislation (2004) concerning the privacy issues the government must observe when handling personal information:

Privacy Concerns Pushed to Front Lines
Feds must explore, explain any effect on privacy by new policies or practices, under pending legislation.

Michelle Madigan, Medill News Service

WASHINGTON--Government agencies are accustomed to assessing the environmental impact of actions when appropriate; soon, they may have to assess the impact of new policies and requirements on privacy.

Federal agencies must publish a "privacy impact analysis" when introducing new regulations, under a measure that passed the House on Monday. The bill, approved on a voice vote, would require federal agencies to conduct a fair and objective evaluation of the proposed rule's impact on personal privacy, assessing how the government would collect, maintain, and protect personal information.

The requirement will "force the government to consider privacy and the ramifications of its policy before privacy is breached," says Katie Korrigan, legislative counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union. "Once you disclose personal information, it's hard to turn the clock back."

The legislation, introduced by Representative Bob Barr (R-Georgia), still must gain Senate approval before Congress adjourns this month to become law. A similar bill, introduced in May by Senator Max Cleland (D-Georgia), is already pending in the Senate, and is being considered by the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Broad Application

Barr's legislation applies to any agency that engages in surveillance, and to any government agency that maintains databases of personal information. It imposes the privacy assessment on agencies that use tracking devices to monitor online activity; it also applies to the use of other surveillance technology, such as facial recognition software, video cameras in public places, and cameras that monitor traffic intersections.

"Too often privacy is an afterthought in the development of policy," says the ACLU's Korrigan, calling the bill "a moderate and balanced approach to address the issue."

In addition, the bill would apply to global position satellite technologies that can be used to monitor a range of personal public and private activity.

"We need to be concerned about the impact of these technologies on privacy," says Lee Tien, senior counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Agencies need to "step back and take a count of the privacy costs they are inflicting on people."

I haven't done a whole lot of research today about who conservatives might rally around, but here's a preliminary list:
Charles Baldwin, Presidential nominee of the Constitutional Party
Amb. Alan Keyes
Rep. Jeff Flake-R, Arizona
Rep. Ron Paul-R, Texas (Republican candidate)
Sen. Mike Gravel-R, Alaska (Libertarian candidate)
Rep. Robert Barr-R, Georgia (Libertarian candidate)
Rep. Duncan Hunter-R, California
Gov. Sarah Palin-R, Alaska
Sen. James Inhofe-R, Oklahoma

In addition, I have discovered a little known (at least to me) caucus, the Republican Liberty Caucus, which on first glance seems to be a collection of conservative/libertarians in all levels of government, from the Congress down to state legislators.
http://www.rlc.org/

This is just a starting point from which we might discuss the relative merits and demerits of the above, in addition to any others people here may suggest.