Lets settle this

[Guest jwp]

All third parties (and as of now there are 14 or so "major" "third" parties) lack the organization and credible candidates to do more than provide distraction and debate in an already clouded election year. That's their real purpose, to create distraction and debate, not to be elected.

If any of the "also ran" parties were serious about their chances for becoming the choice of the people they would organize earlier and campaign harder and, yes, even pick a candidate who was possibly electable.

If any of the candidates themselves were serious about winning the Presidency they would fall back from their "career politician" role, develop a true grass-roots movement based upon the issues and the action they take with those issues and give the people something tangible to base their decision on.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

All third parties (and as of now there are 14 or so "major" "third" parties) lack the organization and credible candidates to do more than provide distraction and debate in an already clouded election year. That's their real purpose, to create distraction and debate, not to be elected.

It's my contention that McCain and Obama are the distractions. You disagree? You'll be forced to debate on the issues.

If any of the "also ran" parties were serious about their chances for becoming the choice of the people they would organize earlier and campaign harder and, yes, even pick a candidate who was possibly electable.

By "electable" you mean a third party candidate should essentially run as a major party candidate?

The Libertarians are extremely well organized. While the party's coffers may not be overflowing, Libertarians, as a lot, are affluent.

If any of the candidates themselves were serious about winning the Presidency they would fall back from their "career politician" role, develop a true grass-roots movement based upon the issues and the action they take with those issues and give the people something tangible to base their decision on.

How do you not see people like Barr and Paul making a grass-roots campaign? Simply because you aren't going to vote for them doesn't mean they aren't trying.

There are two types of political revolution available to us in this country. One is violent, bloody revolution. Our forefathers had the nerve. We don't.

The second type is revolution through the ballot box. Again, I see a failure of courage and faith.

[Guest jwp]

There are two types of political revolution available to us in this country. One is violent, bloody revolution. Our forefathers had the nerve. We don't.

The second type is revolution through the ballot box. Again, I see a failure of courage and faith.

So what you are saying is that your invisible candidates are doing what they should be?

Being invisible and not getting their message(s) out to the public via a campaign?

If an individual wishes to become the elected leader of a body of people they need to be heard and seen by those people.

Not one of the tertiary candidates are doing this. Nor are they doing anything that will be viewed as a bona fide stand against the current political situation in this country. Therefore their candidacy can not be qualified as a "revolution" against anything.

[Smith]

There are two types of political revolution available to us in this country. One is violent, bloody revolution. Our forefathers had the nerve. We don't.

The second type is revolution through the ballot box. Again, I see a failure of courage and faith.

I concur, however you have to find the balance between idealism and reality. I don't think I have ever voted for an official who was my ideal. Does that make me without courage or faith? actully I think it proves the opposite!

The problem with 3rd parties is the minute you start fractioning on issues you start narrowing your scope and influence significantly. A party has to be founded on ideology and not just specific issues. This is why the Libertarians can't get significant traction, they just won't get off topics and apply more ideology. It is tedious, in that they seem to work hand in hand but it has to be balanced.

I think the next real viable 3rd party will be Conservatives, unless the Republicans can reign in their leftist tendencies once on power.

[TGO David]

*sigh*

I consider myself to be pretty Libertarian in ideals. Live and let live. Less government. More personal responsibility. Blah blah blah. The problem with voting Libertarian is that doing so is futile at this point. Sure, voting 3rd Party makes for some great anti-establishment chest beating and maybe makes you feel good about not being a cog in the machine, but come November 3rd when you have to wake up and practice saying the words "President Obama" all of that feel-good posturing pretty much goes out the ****ing window.

I am not happy about voting for McCain. I hate the fact that George W. Bush's second term was an utter failure. It has done more for the Democrats in '08 than anything else could have. Somewhere along the way since 2004, Shrub forgot how to hold the line and started scrambling around trying to make everyone happy (impossible) and ended up pissing off the people who elected him in the first place.

So do I relish the idea of voting McCain into office? No. But I absolutely abhor the idea of voting Obama into office and will cast my one vote in the most effective way possible to ensure that he has an uphill battle getting there. And despite the most earnest dreams of every 3rd Party, Anti-Obama voter out there, that means casting a ballot for McCain. Because in the real world he is the only person who stands half a chance of defeating Obama at the polls.

I may be letting myself be "used" by the GOP, but I'm at least refusing to surrender to the Hype, Hope, Change rhetoric of the Obama machine.

[TGO David]

The problem with 3rd parties is the minute you start fractioning on issues you start narrowing your scope and influence significantly. A party has to be founded on ideology and not just specific issues. This is why the Libertarians can't get significant traction, they just won't get off topics and apply more ideology. It is tedious, in that they seem to work hand in hand but it has to be balanced.

I think the next real viable 3rd party will be Conservatives, unless the Republicans can reign in their leftist tendencies once on power.

Agreed 1,000% on both fronts.

[TGO David]

PS: I think we all may as well go ahead and start getting used to hearing the phrase "President Obama" anyway. I'm no conspiracy theorist but I think the guy has more than enough charisma to mindbend the overwhelmingly apathetic, McDonald's mindset voter into putting him into office entirely under the mantra of "CHANGE".

Apparently he doesn't have to tell us what change or how. All the lazy voters care is that he's preaching change and change sounds good to them right now.

For ****'s sake... change sounds awfully good to me right now too, but I'd at least like GOOD change that is GOOD for this country as a whole and not some Marxist dismantling of our core beliefs and values.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

So what you are saying is that your invisible candidates are doing what they should be?

Being invisible and not getting their message(s) out to the public via a campaign?

If an individual wishes to become the elected leader of a body of people they need to be heard and seen by those people.

Not one of the tertiary candidates are doing this. Nor are they doing anything that will be viewed as a bona fide stand against the current political situation in this country. Therefore their candidacy can not be qualified as a "revolution" against anything.

The Libertarians don't control the media. Ron Paul raised a tremendous amount of money, and his supporters were insane with getting him elected.

Often times, the one who seeks information is as important as the one who provides it. Campaign season isn't just about sitting on the couch and letting someone else tell you how to vote.

I concur, however you have to find the balance between idealism and reality. I don't think I have ever voted for an official who was my ideal. Does that make me without courage or faith? actully I think it proves the opposite!

Hedging a bet is still making a bet. Taking a risk. I agree. What's more risky, though? Taking votes away from McCain by voting for a real conservative, or continuing to plod down this same path toward a dictatorial wastrel of a Federal "government"?

I realize that Obama's four years *could* be bad. I KNOW that continuing down this same two-party road will eventually ruin what's left of the Constitution.

The problem with 3rd parties is the minute you start fractioning on issues you start narrowing your scope and influence significantly. A party has to be founded on ideology and not just specific issues. This is why the Libertarians can't get significant traction, they just won't get off topics and apply more ideology. It is tedious, in that they seem to work hand in hand but it has to be balanced.

When you get serious about the issues, you run headlong into the "sheep" issue we have in this country. Too many people don't see the man behind the curtain. As long as they can make their boat payment and wave the flag, they're happy.

I think the next real viable 3rd party will be Conservatives, unless the Republicans can reign in their leftist tendencies once on power.

I agree. This third party is called "Libertarians".

I really do understand the argument you guys are making for not risking taking votes away from McCain. I simply disagree with your choice of chance, and I'm willing to take the risk on one fail toss. Perhaps if more people felt the same......

[Smith]

PS: I think we all may as well go ahead and start getting used to hearing the phrase "President Obama" anyway. I'm no conspiracy theorist but I think the guy has more than enough charisma to mindbend the overwhelmingly apathetic, McDonald's mindset voter into putting him into office entirely under the mantra of "CHANGE".

That's exactly how Clinton got in. He did have "experience" but his track record was one of the worst of any governor. Every one talked about his charisma and not much about anything of substance. I used to have faith in the character and brains of Americans, but his election(s) started making it wain. Now it is almost gone.

[HanSolo]

I am still waiting for the arguments on the Obama supporters. I would like to understand how a gun carrying constitution believing American can support Obama. Not to bash them by any means, I just would like to understand.

[Smith]

I really do understand the argument you guys are making for not risking taking votes away from McCain. I simply disagree with your choice of chance, and I'm willing to take the risk on one fail toss. Perhaps if more people felt the same......

I've toyed with the idea of voting Obama, for the simple fact that when it alls falls apart (and it will) there will only be a Dem. Pres and congress to blame - ala Jimmy Carter. However, he is so extreme and inadequate I don't know that we could recover from the ideological mess he would make. Plus in this election you are really voting for two or three SCOTUS justices. There lies my vote for McCain.

[TGO David]

That's exactly how Clinton got in. He did have "experience" but his track record was one of the worst of any governor. Every one talked about his charisma and not much about anything of substance. I used to have faith in the character and brains of Americans, but his election(s) started making it wain. Now it is almost gone.

Clinton pandered to the young voter and was in like Flynn. Remember his silly saxophone solo on the Arsenio Hall Show? The guy really knew who his target demographic was and worked them hard.

Obama's machine scored a huge hits by getting Oprah to endorse him, by selling him as something of a "sex object" with those goofy photos of him running shirtless on a beach somewhere (hey... didn't Vladamir Putin do something like that too?), and most recently by selling him to European and Mid-Eastern societies.

The latter of which should have absolutely no bearing on his electability, but you and I know that the sinister undertone to this is "Hey America, look at how much Europe and the Arab nations love me. And if you elect me, they will return to loving America too!"

It's enough to make me want to vomit.

[Guest jwp]

The Libertarians don't control the media. Ron Paul raised a tremendous amount of money, and his supporters were insane with getting him elected.

And yet they fell short, which was a giant disappointment for many.

Often times, the one who seeks information is as important as the one who provides it. Campaign season isn't just about sitting on the couch and letting someone else tell you how to vote.

Yes. And the American public is lazy and wants someone or something to make decisions for them if they can't feel it, taste it or pass it through their lower intestine. That's why we have TiVo which will find and schedule things to record for you weeks in advance and Google which will find things for you that you might not even know about or care about.

The point I am making is that I feel we are ripe for another choice/solution, but it isn't going to come without someone stepping up and taking the reigns. That isn't going to happen in '08 and might not happen in '12 or '16 either.

We're standing at the threshold of another Democratic victory like Perot helped Clinton with. We all know how that panned out for gun owners.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

I am still waiting for the arguments on the Obama supporters. I would like to understand how a gun carrying constitution believing American can support Obama. Not to bash them by any means, I just would like to understand.

You could easily and correctly point out McCain's abysmal record regarding guns and other civil liberties. He's a big government statist and a gun grabber from waaaaaay back.

And yet they fell short, which was a giant disappointment for many.

Well, if more people took the chance and voted for them. See what I mean? If not you, then who?

The point I am making is that I feel we are ripe for another choice/solution, but it isn't going to come without someone stepping up and taking the reigns. That isn't going to happen in '08 and might not happen in '12 or '16 either.

The First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth amendments can't wait that long. If you've never read McCain/Feingold, give it a try. McCain is spooky when you disagree with him.

We're standing at the threshold of another Democratic victory like Perot helped Clinton with. We all know how that panned out for gun owners.

But Federal legislation requiring the registration of all private sales would be good? And McCain has stated clearly his disdain for high cap mags, a la Bill Ruger.

Seriously, fellas, if not now, when?

I don't begrudge you your votes.

[gunsablazin]

If Obama wins this thing maybe, just maybe the conservatives will learn a lesson and get back to doing what we elected them to do in the first place. When you have Republicans out spending Democrats, earmarks etc. it shakes my faith in any thing they say, it's way past time for them to start doing what they were elected to do.

I'm voting McCain only because Obamas policies (or lack there of) scare the hell out of me.

[molonlabetn]

It is actually a good point to say that if enough Conservatives withdraw their support for McCain, it would send a message to the Republican party that we will not tolerate moderates who do not represent American ideals (even with as much respect owed McCain for his military service). Would we rather have McCain for 4 years (he's not going 2 terms, for sure), and then a Liberal for 8... or have a weak liberal for 4 years, and come back with a rejuvenated true-conservative for then next 8?

Point being... the next president is inheriting a mess. They will not be able to turn it around in 4 years. It is a worthy argument to warn us to not be so short sighted in hoping that McCain would hurt the US less... because that is not certain. I'd much rather Obama fail than cast that shadow on a 'conservative' president.

On the other hand. I won't vote for Obama... I kindof like having my soul.

[Guest jwp]

But Federal legislation requiring the registration of all private sales would be good? And McCain has stated clearly his disdain for high cap mags, a la Bill Ruger.

And Obama wants to outlaw the entire firearm.

Which carries more water for you?

[Guest AeroEngrSoftDevMBA]

I'm looking for a candidate that doesn't include his/her religion in his/her list of qualifications.

[TGO David]

I'm looking for a candidate that doesn't include his/her religion in his/her list of qualifications.

Good luck with that one.

[Guest Lefty]

Because if he is on this board, then he is most likely a white, middle class gun lover. One who would NEVER vote for Obama, but MIGHT have voted for McCain.

McCain lost the vote here not Obama.

I might have voted for him in 2000, and really hated seeing Bush's low-life smearing push him out. The way McCain has crossed his own ideals to secure this nomination is sad. And weather you liked Kerry or not, for McCain not to stand up for a fellow veteran and call out Bush for running the same number really chases independants away.

*sigh*

So do I relish the idea of voting McCain into office? No. But I absolutely abhor the idea of voting Obama into office and will cast my one vote in the most effective way possible to ensure that he has an uphill battle getting there. And despite the most earnest dreams of every 3rd Party, Anti-Obama voter out there, that means casting a ballot for McCain. Because in the real world he is the only person who stands half a chance of defeating Obama at the polls.

I may be letting myself be "used" by the GOP, but I'm at least refusing to surrender to the Hype, Hope, Change rhetoric of the Obama machine.

Used is right. They been pushing a fascist agenda and destroying the Constitution to do it. "This sure would be a lot easier if it was a dictatorship, long as I'm the Dictator."-Bush Really? And Obama frightens people? The have the theory of the Unitary Executive as their whitewash for totalitarianism. They scare people into voting for them by telling voters that while their guns are taken by tax wielding socialists their children will be forced to perform gay sex while speaking spanish or submit to a postpartumn abortion. Maybe after the U.S. is taken over by the anti-christ us true believers will just be sucked up to heaven.

The Libertarians don't control the media. Ron Paul raised a tremendous amount of money, and his supporters were insane with getting him elected.

Often times, the one who seeks information is as important as the one who provides it. Campaign season isn't just about sitting on the couch and letting someone else tell you how to vote.

The propaganda has become totally pervasive. Unabashed partisan media messages have become the norm.

I really do understand the argument you guys are making for not risking taking votes away from McCain. I simply disagree with your choice of chance, and I'm willing to take the risk on one fail toss. Perhaps if more people felt the same......

You could easily and correctly point out McCain's abysmal record regarding guns and other civil liberties. He's a big government statist and a gun grabber from waaaaaay back.

Seriously, fellas, if not now, when?

I don't begrudge you your votes.

I also will be voting for Obama for the simple fact that I am not wealthy and born privileged, like most Americans, and unlike McCain. I've had work my but off just to keep the ends meeting in this travesty of trickle down economics. I don't want a guy who has never had to worry about where the health insurance is coming from or how the personal bank account is.

[Smith]

I'm looking for a candidate that doesn't include his/her religion in his/her list of qualifications.

Disagree. If they are honest you at least know what basic ideology they are coming from. If they aren't honest it will quickly show. You can't separate a man's belief system from his politics. As James says, "the double minded man is unstable in all his ways. He is like a ship tossed about on the waves of the sea."

[Smith]

I also will be voting for Obama for the simple fact that I am not wealthy and born privileged, like most Americans, and unlike McCain. I've had work my but off just to keep the ends meeting in this travesty of trickle down economics. I don't want a guy who has never had to worry about where the health insurance is coming from or how the personal bank account is.

Yeah those years spent in the Hanoi Hilton were the good times we all wish we had! I think my sig applies here.

[Guest slothful1]

I also will be voting for Obama for the simple fact that I am not wealthy and born privileged, like most Americans, and unlike McCain. I've had work my but off just to keep the ends meeting in this travesty of trickle down economics. I don't want a guy who has never had to worry about where the health insurance is coming from or how the personal bank account is.

Uh... Are you under the impression that Obama had some kind of deprived, lower-class upbringing?

[Guest GLOCKGUY]

I am afraid to say that any write in vote this fall will be a vote for boma

i agree any vote thats not for McCain is a vote for Obama

[Guest AeroEngrSoftDevMBA]

Disagree. If they are honest you at least know what basic ideology they are coming from. If they aren't honest it will quickly show. You can't separate a man's belief system from his politics. As James says, "the double minded man is unstable in all his ways. He is like a ship tossed about on the waves of the sea."

To be snippy, I said what "I" am looking for. So when you say "disagree" you technically are saying that it's not what "I" am looking for.

Semantics aside, I'm not saying that you can separate a man's beliefs from his ideology. It would be unfair of me to expect that. But the mere fact of someone's belief in God or Christ or Allah or Yahweh or whatever is of little importance to me. I can only worry about my own salvation and it's not my place to judge anyone else's fate (unless of course they try to break into my house at 3 am). It's the candidates stance on issues (and his voting record) that are important to me that I'm looking for. But a candidate can exhibit his stance on issues without saying, "hey, BTW, I believe all this stuff because I'm a good little (insert religion here)." Believe or not, there are good people who have no beliefs. There are also good Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and everything else.

I think it's fair to say that in this country it would be damned near impossible to get elected president if one wasn't a Christian, and that is what I have a problem with. A candidates Christianity (or any other religious affiliation) isn't nearly as important as his record on standing up for and protecting the U.S. constitution. This of course means a candidate who interprets it the way I do. For lots of people in Cali it means interpreting it differently (2nd amendment).

That said, these are of course just my opinions, and all opinions stink, don't they?

If I could I would vote for Ron Paul, who I feel has great track record with regard to the U.S. Constitution. He's a Christian, BTW.