Saturday, September 13, 2008

Third Party Candidates Unite








Having lost the bid for the Republican nomination for president, Ron Paul has made it clear that he will not run for president as an independent. But three days ago, he set up a press conference with presidential candidates Ralph Nader, Chuck Baldwin, and Cynthia McKinney. Each candidate (including Bob Barr, who did not attend the event) agreed to a set of political principles, which go against principles that both Barack Obama and John McCain have espoused. The statement of these principles is below. Though Ron Paul says not to vote for either O’Cain or McBama, he does not officially endorse any of these four candidates. I don’t endorse any of them either, but I would rather have any of them as president than either of the two republicrats. Here are their campaign websites:

http://www.votenader.org/

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/

http://baldwin08.com/

http://votetruth08.com/

At the press conference, mention was made of a website which promotes the idea of voting for third party or independent candidates rather than the “lesser of two evils”. The idea is that someone leaning towards voting for McCain, but only because he thinks Obama is worse, could make a deal with someone who thinks that Obama is the lesser of two evils. They would both agree to vote for a third party candidate instead. Someone might say, “But how can I trust the person with whom I am making this deal that they will really vote for the third party candidate instead of Obama or McCain?” The website addresses this issue in several ways, but there is one that I find to be both very helpful and intriguing. BOTH YOU AND YOUR “VOTE BUDDY” WOULD FILL OUT ABSENTEE BALLOTS AND MAIL THEM IN AT THE SAME TIME! What a great idea! You can read more about this here.

Here is the set of principles on which the four candidates agreed:

We Agree

Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.

Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.

The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.

The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.
source: campaignforliberty.com

1 comment:

  1. Matthew, Matthew -

    I can't believe you wrote, "...I don’t endorse any of them either, but I would rather have any of them as president than either of the two republicrats."

    Are you serious, my friend?

    Did you really mean to say that you would rather have hard-core liberals [who favor abortion and homosexual "rights"] C. McKinney or R. Nader as President than either the Democrat, who himself is a hard-core liberal - I can understand that - the three are three peas in a pod, but to prefer them over Republican McCain? That is a little too much for me.

    But to say you would want McKinney or Nader over McCain - wow that is a bit radical for me.

    Although I am leaning toward voting for Chuck Baldwin or Alan Keyes . . . I would never want either Obama, McKinney or Nader - and their pro-death, pro-homosexual agenda which to me - transcends any other issue - the war, immigration, education, the economy or anything else.

    Does Paul want to steer his followers toward hard-core leftist because of his dislike for McCain and the Republicans? I can understand to a certain degree his frustration and angst, but it is going a bit too far to prefer either McKinney or Nader to McCain or more of a real conservative like Baldwin.

    ReplyDelete