Here’s a question for third-party voters of all stripes: When casting your vote for an alternative party candidate, to what extent do you take the candidate’s actual ability to do the job you are selecting them for into account? Do you think about Charles Jay’s ability to deliver a state of the union address, or Gene Amondson’s ability to host a state dinner? Or the ability of Rosa Clemente or Wayne Allyn Root to preside over the Senate? Or, since you know your candidate is unlikely to actually win, do you care more about voting your conscience?
30 Comments
Comments are closed.
My vote is always based upon my perception of a candidate’s ability to capably, properly – and ethically – perform the duties of the position they seek.
I thought it was an Ed McMahon reference.
Maybe its a subtle reference to the Fonz?
“…was that a gay joke?”
I’m gay and I can’t even figure it out.
Is he drunk?
Mike,
Thanks. I’v seen some videos of him speaking,and he’s good. He also meshes really well with Nader.
Matt’s a former elected official with a storied record on progressive issues and who came _that_ close to being mayor of SF. When he was the only elected Green on the SF Board of Supervisors, he impressed the majority Dems enough that they elected him Board president.
He’s radical and principled, but he’s consistently rational, together and articulate and he always impresses people that see him speak for the first time. He’s wonderfully informed and substantive and goes beyond yelling out lefty talking points in his speeches.
He gets into great detail and shows himself to be a serious candidate.
I’m sure that all of you on a third party site do what I do in classifying two types of third party candidates: (1) The people who make great candidates and (2) The people who’d make great elected officials.
Matt is one of those rare people that is both.
I would vote for him in a heartbeat.
…was that a gay joke?
“Ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyo”
Pardon?
Ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyo
To those in the know of the Progressive movement: Why Gonzales?
He’s a sharp looking guy,and im sure his star is rising—whats in store for him? Is Nader going to pass the baton to him?
I’ve always been absolutely confident in Ralph nader’s ability to be an excellent and highly effective president. I think Gonzalez would make a solid VP. But I also think McKinney would make a highly capable and effective president. I honesly don’t know enough abt Clemente to say how she would handle the Senate, but I’d love to be there the first day she has the gavel in hand!
But I think Nader/Gonzalez, if we are talking abt both candidates, is this elections most solid choice for P and VP, as far as the criteria of this post.
I’m still not sure if I’m voting McKinney or Nader in November. I love having the choice though! I’m relishing having two great candidates on the Left of the political spectrum to choose from!
“Langa, you don’t have to register with the IRS for playing fantasy football.”
That’s exactly my point. I support the right to free association, whether that association takes the form of a fantasy football league, a church, a corporation, or whatever.
“…if the IRS’ meddlesome regulations weren’t even in the picture, Warren could have a debate and endorse candidates too. But he can’t because of the IRS’ strict code. So therefore, that makes Warren’s church and virtually every other church in America a creature of the State and controlled by the State.”
So Warren deserves to be sued because of something that is not his fault. This is equivalent to the “love it or leave it” argument that continuing to live in a territory that has been claimed by the state constitutes implicit consent, and somehow confers moral legitimacy on the state’s claim. Nonsense.
Well, in 2008 the question is moot for Greens, as we have not only a more qualified candidate than Obama, with 12 years in congress, must of it on Foreign Relations Comm, and who is not a terrifying warmonger like McCain.
I would honestly love to see McKinney as Commander in chief – if she had 8 years, she could do some serious work reforming the CIA, eliminating the covert opts that have been serving as foreign policy for 60 years, dismantling the military-industrial complex, reassert our place in the world as an engine for peace and prosperity, and give us a peace dividend that would not only eliminate the deficit and make a huge divot in the debt, but give us single payer health care.
Mike Theodore // Aug 17, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Most third party voters (including myself) tend to aim towards voting for an ideology, instead of voting for a president.
True, and you probably should have stopped there.
Third parties have to start running presidents, not candidates if anyone will take them seriously.
Third parties should be working toward persuading voters that behind a platform is a philosophy. Without a consistent platform, there is no way to know how a candidate will act in office.
For the LP, the philosophy is simple and consistent. Additionally in practice, liberty promotes decency and prosperity. THIS is what the LP ought to be promoting!
Steven R Linnabary // Aug 17, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Will Root be better at presiding over the US Senate than Hillary or Leiberman?
I certainly hope he will be. It mostly involves being able to sit there and keep your mouth shut.
W.A.R. keep his mouth shut? LOL, LOL, LOL!!!
Langa, you don’t have to register with the IRS for playing fantasy football.
Churches are naturally tax-exempt. What I’m trying to point out is that all of the Libertarian folks (keep in mind I’m in the Constitution Party and agree with the Barr campaign’s strategy here) are getting mad that he’s suing a church.
That’s not the issue. The issue is that if the IRS’ meddlesome regulations weren’t even in the picture, Warren could have a debate and endorse candidates too.
But he can’t because of the IRS’ strict code.
So therefore, that makes Warren’s church and virtually every other church in America a creature of the State and controlled by the State.
“…every church under the IRS’ fraudulent tax-exempt status is a subsidiary of the federal government.”
This argument assumes that taxation is something that occurs naturally, and any deviation from it is somehow perverse.
This position seems totally backwards, at least from a libertarian point of view. It would be akin to arguing that your fantasy football league or NCAA office pool are “creatures of the IRS” (since you don’t pay taxes on the winnings) and therefore anyone that you choose not to invite to participate should be allowed to sue you.
I’m sending a message with my Libertarian vote, not endorsing the qualifications of the nominee to be president. This year, however, I am far more confident in Barr’s ability to actually do the job than I was of Badnarik, Browne, or even Paul. If George Bush is qualified then anyone with 40 years of life experience, good speechwriters, advisors, and coaches can do it. The next question should be – do you consider the candidate’s ability to enact legislation and implement policies, and their ability to act as commander-in-chief? Even many Obama voters don’t consider these two.
bengraves,
The church is not the “creation” of the IRS–anymore than you are. The church has been unfairly subjugated to this crap.
Oops, I meant for that comment to go on the post directly underneath this one. Sorry, admins.
Lifted from a post that I found before both third party blogs picked up on it:
Texas Libertarian’s take on Barr’s Saddleback Church suit
The key thing to consider:
First of all, Rick Warren’s church is not a private organization, it is a creature of the IRS code.
So therefore, Bob Barr and any other candidate should have the means of suing any church that is a 501(c)3-status church. That includes every church that doesn’t pay property taxes and does not have to inform the public as to what they’re spending.
People are railing against Barr because he’s suing a so-called private church. No he’s not. He’s suing a corporation that is a creature of our IRS. So technically, every church under the IRS’ fraudulent tax-exempt status is a subsidiary of the federal government.
That’s just my take on it, at least.
Even though I’m solidly in the Constitution Party camp, I see the reasoning behind the Barr campaign suing.
You guys have the wrong argument. Your arguments are tainted by the sheer fact that you can’t stand Barr. That’s just from observation though.
I mostly look at the platform and the type of administration he/she would put together. Ethics are also an important thing to consider.
The most important issue to me is that a candidate calls for immediate withdrawal from Iraq along with a non-interventionist foreign policy. If he/she wants to eliminate the income tax, and preferably not replace it with a national sales tax, that would seal the deal.
A couple weeks into the Bob Barr campaign, I became very concerned about a lack of ethics and also how committed he was to the LP. I am beginning to doubt he would run as libertarian of an administration as I previously thought.
Seeing that Chuck Baldwin offers all three of these priorities to me, he seems my likely choice.
Since I’ve never voted for a candidate at the national and state level who ever had a chance of winning I never take into account their ability to do the job. Even if they did win I don’t think any of them would be any worse than the current office holder.
Hopefully ideology is barely, if ever, a decision in who you’re going to vote for.
Will Root be better at presiding over the US Senate than Hillary or Leiberman?
I certainly hope he will be. It mostly involves being able to sit there and keep your mouth shut.
Will Barr be more trustworthy, be able to host state dinners and deliver the state of the union speeches as well as Obama or McCain?
He might not be as “pure” as I’d like, but I have no doubt he will be better than Obama or McCain, but possibly not as good as Badnarik would have been.
PEACE
Steve
Langa more accurately answers the questions.
I usually vote based on who I think would make the best decisions with regard to policy. Most of the other functions of the job could be learned between the election and the inauguration.
I’ve thought about this and made a video about this (camera software failed). Most third party voters (including myself) tend to aim towards voting for an ideology, instead of voting for a president.
Now that was different in respects during the Paul Campaign. I trusted him running the office of President.
Third parties have to start running presidents, not candidates if anyone will take them seriously.
Wouldn’t them being able to do the job be part of “voting your conscience”?
Conscience. I dont expect Baldwin to be able to give a State of the Union address, although I certainly think he’d do a better job than Gor-geo-g-gour-George Bush.