My Election, My Choice

[memphismason]

http://baldwin08.com/HomePage.cfm

I know everyone will say....."If you don't vote for McCain, you are basically voting for Obama"....well then you can just believe that all you want.

I refuse to pick a lesser of two evils, when I believe they are both equal in their evil status.

So start flaming, I am ready for it.

[Guest TheBulldog]

These dudes better both be Marines or I will take exception to the use of the IWO JIMA Memorial!

[TripleDigitRide]

These dudes better both be Marines or I will take exception to the use of the IWO JIMA Memorial!

Castle is a Marine. He served in Viet Nam.

[Guest TheBulldog]

Okay so ONE man can stand in front of the IWO. But the other can't.

Castle should know better than that.

That won't fly right with most of us.

[Guest Verbal Kint]

Okay so ONE man can stand in front of the IWO. But the other can't.

Castle should know better than that.

That won't fly right with most of us.

Actually they're standing on either side of it... not in front of it.

I'm voting for McCain still. He's got some weak ideas, which really hurts him... but it's the best thing going right now against Obama. I also hate to simply vote for the lesser of the two evils, but if it keeps that jackass out of the Oval Office, then I'll do it. And picking a 3rd party candidate, rather than a strong contender, is a wasted vote that can keep him out, IMO. No offense meant at all by that... definitely vote how you see fit.

Edited July 11, 2008 by Verbal Kint

[DRM]

I refuse to pick a lesser of two evils,

Lesser of two evils? I think you have a perception issue.

Let's break this down to the basics...

Your goal is to get the person into office who shares the most values in common with you, right?

That said - It's a simple matter of listing the shared values that each person holds.

Say Obama shares 3 values with you (Yeah, I'm being generous).

Say McCain shares 7 values with you.

And say your random 3rd party candidate shares 42 values with you (again, generous).

But you already KNOW that your 3rd candidate will not be elected, right? So even though you have FAR more shared values with that 3rd party, you are NOT meeting your goal of getting the person into office that shares the most values, are you?

Clearly - a legitimate chance to get 7 shared values into office is far more in line with your goal than voting for 42 shared values that you know will NOT ever get into office, and even worse - that vote will help get LESS shared values into office than voting for McCain.

Like I said - this is about perspective. If you really want the most of your shared values in office - then it makes sense to make practical decisions that really will get the most shared values into office.

[Guest crytes]

except as long as people catagoricly dismiss third party canadates then we stay stuck in a 2 party system. The dems and republicans have focused through the media to consider them as the only valid option which keeps us at their mercy until people make different choices. How about ignoring parties all together they don't work and vote for the individuals becouse thats who you're giveing the job. I'd much rather see people vote for someone and get a leader they want rather than an election process that gives the job to whichever of two elitests the people hate less.

[DRM]

except as long as people catagoricly dismiss third party canadates then we stay stuck in a 2 party system.

I'm not categorically dismissing anything or anyone - I am making a statement of practical fact based on easily observed data.

If that easily observed data showed that there was even the most remote possibility a 3rd party could win - and thereby meet my criteria of getting the most shared values into office - then it would make sense to vote for that person/party.

Remember - the goal here is to actually get shared values INTO office.

Voting "to prove a point" is an emotion driven concept - and is NOT productive to the end goal.

Shoot - even chosing to view it as voting for the person with the least non-shared values (lesser of two evils as some put it) is better than voting "to prove a point" - because at least voting for the person with the least un=shared values is a RESULTS based decision.

Now - the only logical "out" here is for you to disagree with the end goal as stated. If you have some other end goal than RESULTS (most shared values in office) - then we can change directions and adjust the discussion accordingly.

[Guest slothful1]

Lesser of two evils? I think you have a perception issue.

Let's break this down to the basics...

Your goal is to get the person into office who shares the most values in common with you, right?

I would disagree with this premise. Choosing between Republicans and Democrats to implement the U.S. Constitution is like choosing between Michael Jackson and Jeffrey Dahmer to babysit your kids -- i.e., do you just want them molested, or molested, killed & eaten? The fact that Michael Jackson presumably "shares more values" with me, by not being a homicidal cannibal, does not automatically make him an acceptable choice.

[memphismason]

DRM, while claiming that my voting will be an "emotional" one is silly, because I think that the logic you put forth is emotional. The Liberal media have conditioned us to believe that only two candidates have a chance, and because of the stupidity of the sheeple, that is what we have today.

I have and will always vote for who I want to have the job. I doesn't matter what the masses believe. In your eyes am I trowing away a vote....yes.....do I care......no. Remember "If you always do, what you have always done, then you will get, what you have always gotten." "Stupidity is when some keeps doing the same thing, and expect different results." *****Disclaimer....I am not calling you stupid, please do not take it that way.********

Following are the breakdowns the GOA have put together:

[memphismason]

John McCain

John McCain's Gun Control Problem

by John Velleco

Director of Federal Affairs

In 2000, Andrew McKelvey, the billionaire founder of monster.com, threw a sizable chunk of his fortune into the gun control debate.

It was shortly after the Columbine school shooting. Bill Clinton was in the White House and gun control was daily front-page news. McKelvey wanted in.

He started out contributing to Handgun Control Inc., which had since been renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. But while he agreed with their gun banning goals, McKelvey thought the way they packaged their message was too polarizing.

"I told them that Handgun Control was the wrong name. I thought what they were doing was great but I thought it could be done differently," McKelvey said.

So McKelvey struck out on his own and formed Americans for Gun Safety. Although AGS shared almost identical public policy goals as other anti-gun groups, McKelvey portrayed the group as in the 'middle' on the issue and attempted to lure pro-gun advocates into his fold.

To pull it off, he needed a bipartisan coalition with credibility on both sides of the gun debate. On the anti-gun side, the task was easy. Most of the Democrats and a small but vocal minority of Republicans supported President Clinton's gun control agenda.

Finding someone who could stake a claim as a pro-gunner and yet be willing to join McKelvey was not so easy. Enter Senator John McCain.

McCain's star was already falling with conservatives. He had carved out a niche as a 'maverick' as the author of so-called Campaign Finance Reform (more aptly named the incumbent protection act), which was anathema to conservatives but made him a darling of the mainstream media.

Gun owners were outraged over CFR, but McCain still maintained some credibility on the gun issue.

Earlier in his career, McCain had voted against the Clinton crime bill (which contained a ban on so-called assault weapons), and he did not join the 16 Senate Republicans who voted for the Brady bill, which required a five-day waiting period for the purchase of a handgun.

But as he ramped up for his presidential run in 2000, McCain, expanding on the 'maverick' theme, staked out a position on guns far to the left of his primary opponent, George W. Bush.

McCain began speaking out against small, inexpensive handguns and he entertained the idea of supporting the 'assault weapons' ban. His flirtation with anti-Second Amendment legislation quickly led to a political marriage of convenience with McKelvey.

Within months of the formation of AGS, McCain was featured in radio and television ads in Colorado and Oregon supporting initiatives to severely regulate gun shows and register gun buyers. Anti-gunners were ecstatic to get McCain on board.

Political consultant Scott Reed, who managed Bob Dole's presidential campaign in 1996, hoped McCain would "bring a conservative perspective to the gun debate."

The ads not only pushed the anti-gun show measure in those two states, they also served to undermine the efforts of gun rights activists who were furiously lobbying against the same type of bill in Congress.

"I think that if the Congress won't act, the least I can do is support the initiative in states where it's on the ballot," McCain said in an interview.

At the time still a newcomer to the gun control debate, McCain said, "I do believe my view has evolved."

McCain continued to pursue his anti-gun agenda even after his presidential run ended, and the next year he and McKelvey made it to the big screen.

As moviegoers flocked to see Pearl Harbor, they were treated to an anti-gun trailer ad featuring McCain. This time the Senator was pushing legislation to force people to keep firearms locked up in the home.

"We owe it to our children to be responsible by keeping our guns locked up," McCain told viewers.

Economist and author John Lott, Jr., noted, "No mention was ever made by McCain about using guns for self-defense or that gunlocks might make it difficult to stop intruders who break into your home. And research indicates that McCain's push for gunlocks is far more likely to lead to more deaths than it saves."

Also in 2001, McCain went from being a supporter of anti-gun bills to being a lead sponsor.

Pro-gun allies in Congress who were holding off gun show legislation -- which would at best register gun owners and at worst close down the shows entirely -- were angered when McCain teamed up with Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and introduced a "compromise" bill to give the issue momentum.

"There is a lot of frustration. He has got his own agenda," one Republican Senator told Roll Call.

After September 11, 2001, McKelvey and McCain, now joined by Lieberman, had a new angle to push gun control.

"Terrorists are exploiting the gun show loophole," AGS ads hyped. McCain and Lieberman hit the airwaves again in a series of radio and TV spots, thanks to McKelvey's multi-million dollar investment.

A Cox News Service article noted that, "The ads first focused on gun safety but switched to terrorism after Sept. 11. Americans for Gun Safety said the switch is legitimate."

However, Second Amendment expert Dave Kopel pointed out that, "the McCain-Lieberman bill is loaded with poison pills which would allow a single appointed official to prevent any gun show, anywhere in the United States from operating."

Ultimately, the anti-gun legislation was killed in the Congress and AGS fizzled out and disappeared altogether. The issues for which McKelvey spent over $10 million are still in play, however, and John McCain remains a supporter of those causes. In fact, as recently as 2004, McCain was able to force a vote on a gun show amendment.

In the post-Columbine and post-9/11 environments, the Second Amendment was under attack as never before. Pro-gun patriotic Americans who stood as a bulwark to keep the Congress from eviscerating the Constitution were dismayed to look across the battle lines only to see Senator McCain working with the enemy.

John McCain tried running for president in 2000 as an anti-gunner. This year it appears he is seeking to "come home" to the pro-gun community, but the wounds are deep and memories long.

[Marswolf]

I've never even heard of these guys. Just a vote for Obama.

[memphismason]

Barack Obama

Obama to Get the Dems 'Barack' into the Business of Gun Control

by Erich Pratt

Director of Communications

It sounded like a report from the National Enquirer. Dick Cheney and Barack Obama... cousins?

Say it ain't so, Mrs. Cheney.

But in fact, the Vice-President's wife revealed this bombshell in her recent book, Blue Skies, No Fences. According to Lynne Cheney, the current veep and the Illinois Democrat Senator, who wants to be the next president, are distant cousins -- eighth cousins, to be exact.1

When hit with this revelation, the Obama campaign took the news in stride, saying that, "Every family has a black sheep."2

All kidding aside, it's too bad that Dick Cheney and Barack Obama didn't do more shooting and target practice together in their youth, because today, they couldn't be more polar opposites when it comes to the Second Amendment.

Whereas one would be hard-pressed to find an anti-gun vote on Cheney's House record -- as he served the state of Wyoming for many years -- Obama's gun record is just simply atrocious.

Oh sure, Obama told Iowa radio listeners last year that he is a "strong believer" in the rights of hunters and sportsmen, and that homeowners should have a firearm "to protect their home and their family." But then in the next breath, he says, "It's hard for me to find a rationale for having a 17-clip semiautomatic [sic]."3

Good thing the ban on magazines that Obama supports was not in effect during the Los Angeles riots of 1992. That's when Korean merchants successfully used their semi-autos -- with large magazines containing multiple rounds -- to keep looters away from their stores. Their businesses remained standing, even while many others (which were left unprotected) burned to the ground.

Obama supports the existing gun control laws on the books. Nowhere in his literature or in his campaign speeches does he stake out a position in favor of repealing any gun control measure that has passed into law.

Not surprisingly, Obama supports the gun ban in the nation's capital, saying the "DC handgun law is constitutional."4 And he is opposed to people using guns for self-defense, when those guns are owned in localities like Washington, DC and Chicago where firearms are banned.

Illinois resident Hale DeMar was prosecuted by the town of Wilmette for using a handgun in his home to defend his family in 2003. Because Wilmette had imposed a ban on the possession of handguns, several Illinois state legislators introduced SB 2165 to protect the right of self-defense for residents like DeMar.

True to form, Obama voted against the pro-gun legislation.5

It is very telling that Obama moved further to the left than most of the liberal legislators in his state. The self-defense bill protecting gun owners like DeMar passed the state senate 41-16 and was later enacted into law over the governor's veto (and over Obama's opposition).

The concealed carry of firearms is another important issue for gun owners, and yet Obama is not only opposed to citizens carrying guns, he supports using federal laws to override those states which currently allow the practice.

In 2004, Obama said he supports a national ban on concealed carry because the states that allow it are "threatening the safety of Illinois residents."6 Never mind the fact that concealed carry laws have improved the safety of citizens in the states that have enacted such laws.7

Obama has also taken a strong position in favor of the Clinton semi-auto ban which sunset in 2004. "I believe we need to renew -- not roll back -- this common sense gun law," Obama said.8

Well, there's nothing that's "common sense" about the Clinton ban. Not only did it outlaw almost 200 types of firearms, legislators like Senator Chuck Schumer of New York tried to amend the law (before it sunset) to include additional types of semi-autos -- even banning classic (wood-stock) long guns such as the Remington shotgun which Senator John Kerry received as a gift during his 2004 presidential bid.9

Bottom line: Senator Obama may not be as gun ban-crazed as the infamous Chuck Schumer. He may not lay awake at night dreaming of ways to disarm honest gun owners. But sure enough, Obama is a committed anti-gunner.

The chart below lays out the key votes and positions that Sen. Obama has taken over the past few years.

Barack Obama's Gun-Related Votes The U.S. Senate Debated:

Obama

Voted:

Supporting concealed carry for citizens10

Anti-gun

Banning many common semi-automatic firearms11

Anti-gun

Disallowing self-defense in towns where guns are banned12

Anti-gun

Imposing one handgun a month restrictions13

Anti-gun

Requiring lock up your safety trigger locks14

Anti-gun

Protecting gun dealers from frivolous lawsuits15

Anti-gun

Outlawing gun confiscations during a national emergency16

Pro-gun

Squelching the free speech rights of gun owners17

Anti-gun

Restricting the interstate sales of firearms18

Anti-gun

Repealing the gun ban in Washington, DC19

Anti-gun

[DRM]

I would disagree with this premise. Choosing between Republicans and Democrats

Where did I mention any party? I simply mentioned two people - one of which WILL be the next POTUS.

I could care less what party any of them are affiliated with. I am simply looking at the available facts, and choosing my vote based on the likelyhood of getting the *most* shared values into office.

[memphismason]

Chuck Baldwin

by Larry Pratt

Executive Director

The Constitution Party candidate for President in 2008 is Chuck Baldwin.

Baldwin is a talk show host and pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. He is also a life member of Gun Owners of America -- making him the only current presidential candidate to hold that distinction.

He frequently plugs GOA when his columns touch on Second Amendment issues. A few years ago, he had me speak at a patriotic celebration held at his church.

Baldwin has compiled a number of America's key documents, some of which were not readily available. After a year of searching, he published The Freedom Documents, which includes some obvious selections such as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But other, less well-known documents, are also included -- documents such as The Fundamental Orders of 1639, Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, the Paris Peace Treaty and John Adams' Inaugural Address.

Among those buying Baldwin's book is the Tennessee Supreme Court which ordered several copies.

Baldwin won the 2008 Constitution Party nomination for President after a spirited challenge from former UN Ambassador Alan Keyes. The Party is in the process of getting ballot access in as many states as possible. Interested readers can see Baldwin's stance on the Second Amendment by going to www.baldwin2008.com on the Internet.

[Marswolf]

If that sleazeball bigot Larry Pratt is for him, that explains a lot.

[memphismason]

Where did I mention any party? I simply mentioned two people - one of which WILL be the next POTUS.

I could care less what party any of them are affiliated with. I am simply looking at the available facts, and choosing my vote based on the likelyhood of getting the *most* shared values into office.

There is no middle ground. There is just Black and White...the gray area is meanings less.

Saying that you don't care wht party they are from is silly.....you just said in an earlier post the a third party will not win...so what you are saying is a person musty vote either Jackass or Elephant to make a vote worth anything. I refuse to subscribe to that.

[memphismason]

If that sleazeball bigot Larry Pratt is for him, that explains a lot.

**ouch**

I know what side of the fence he will be standing on when the "Great American Gun Grab" starts.

[memphismason]

I've never even heard of these guys. Just a vote for Obama.

Wrong Answer.

Just another American citizen who has allowed the gooberment and big business to force their political agenda on the masses.

I sure hate that.

[DRM]

DRM, while claiming that my voting will be an "emotional" one is silly, because I think that the logic you put forth is emotional. The Liberal media have conditioned us to believe that only two candidates have a chance, and because of the stupidity of the sheeple, that is what we have today.

You have 3 points here to be addressed.

First - you claim my position is emotion based, but clearly it is not. If you still think it is - please explain how.

Second - This is not limited to 'liberal media' - The majority of the general public accepts the 2 party system, and therefore they continue to operate under it.

But as much as you or I want to have 3 or more choices on the next ballot that could *actually* result in any one of those people having about equal odds of being POTUS - that is simply not going to happen THIS TIME.

I know it.

You know it.

Everyone knows it.

Does that mean in 2012 we won't have 3 candidates all with roughly the same odds of being elected? I don't know. but I'll evaluate that situation when it arrives - and as I laid out, adjust my vote accordingly based on the likelyhood of getting actual RESULTS.

I have and will always vote for who I want to have the job.

Again, my problem is that is just not a practical view.

For example - my research has shown me that DRM is - amazingly enough - a potential candidate that shares 100% of my shared values. I have also found in my research that DRM would be willing to be POTUS.

Based on that alone - and using your guideline of "who I want to have the job" - voting for anyone *but* DRM would be absurd, correct?

But in reality - if i write in "DRM" on the ballot every 4 years you and I both know I am "throwing my vote away" (as much as it pains me to say that )

I'm not trying to squash anyone's passion, I'm just being honest. DRM is *not* going to be the next POTUS - so I have to make a RESULTS based decision and vote for the person who (unfortunately) will have less than a 100% shared value rating, but DOES actually have a shot at getting *some* of my shared values into office and get RESULTS.

Because at the end of the day - this is STILL all about RESULTS.

[DRM]

There is no middle ground. There is just Black and White...the gray area is meanings less.

ok, if that is what you want....

Black or white:

Will Baldwin be the incoming POTUS for 2009, yes or no?

Saying that you don't care wht party they are from is silly.....you just said in an earlier post the a third party will not win...so what you are saying is a person musty vote either Jackass or Elephant to make a vote worth anything. I refuse to subscribe to that.

Why is it silly that I evaluate each and every new election cycle, look at the actual viability of EACH and EVERY candidate - and then vote for the person most likely to get the most shared values into office? if you can explain the flaw in that process - I'm open to suggestions.

[Im Neero]

I think you guys should listen to him. Don't the Masons decide who is going to be president anyways?

[memphismason]

Second - This is not limited to 'liberal media' - The majority of the general public accepts the 2 party system, and therefore they continue to operate under it.

The Majority of the general public....you mean all the sheeple.....yeah I want to follow their example.

Thomas Jefferson said it best:

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

"He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors."

"One man with courage is a majority. "

"We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another "

[memphismason]

ok, if that is what you want....

Black or white:

Will Baldwin be the incoming POTUS for 2009, yes or no?

Why is it silly that I evaluate each and every new election cycle, look at the actual viability of EACH and EVERY candidate - and then vote for the person most likely to get the most shared values into office? if you can explain the flaw in that process - I'm open to suggestions.

1. I am not the only deciding factor in the case. Has the masses been condition to only vote for a Repub. or a Demorap....yes......

Look, at the end of the election, if Baldwin is elected...I will smile, if he is not, I will frown. Does that make you feel better. I have no problem accepting defeat, when it is dealt to me.

This election could potentially be the worse for Gun Owners. Because everyone will be voting within the two main parties, and both cand. hate the idea of the masses having guns.

I am not trying to change anyone's mind. I am just spreading info.

Hope this is better.....Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States of America. And I am sure I will get part of the blame because I will not be voting for McCain.

[memphismason]

Why is it silly that I evaluate each and every new election cycle, look at the actual viability of EACH and EVERY candidate - and then vote for the person most likely to get the most shared values into office? if you can explain the flaw in that process - I'm open to suggestions.

I am going to fix your above words......

"Why is it silly that I evaluate each and every new election cycle, look at the actual viability of EACH and EVERY candidate (except those that are not in the two major parties, cause everyone knows they will never win) - and then vote for the person (within the two major parties) most likely to get the most shared values into office? if you can explain the flaw in that process - I'm open to suggestions.

There is the flaw.....Saying I evaluate each and every candidate equally, etc. etc., does no good because you are going to remain voting in the same two parties. Save yourself the trouble, just look at the Repubs. and Democraps, because you will not be voting outside of those limits.