Posted by shelly on Thu, 10/16/2008 - 2:34pm
Chuck Baldwin
41% (403 votes)
Bob Barr
13% (124 votes)
Cynthia McKinney
6% (55 votes)
Ralph Nader
17% (170 votes)
Barack Obama
3% (25 votes)
John McCain
3% (30 votes)
Ron Paul
12% (122 votes)
Other 3rd Party Candidate/Write-in
1% (11 votes)
Conscientious Non-Voter
3% (26 votes)
Undecided
2% (18 votes)
Total votes: 984
****
I was luck enough to vote for Ron Paul in my state, Louisiana, thanks to the LA Taxpayers party. I am happy to report that he finished in 3rd! Beating Cynthia McKinney in 4th as 3rd party options go.
-Peace.Love.Prosperity.-
~*Katie-Tantrum*~
My vote is intended to be a complete protest of the top of the ballot. Therefore my vote went to (dun--dun-dun......) Thomas Jefferson the last great President of the Republic!
"None are so hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Allison
http://SmArgus.com
The Smoking Argus Daily
I can't vote for Baldwin, because he and the Constitution party want to define marriage as man + woman. To the libertarian in me, that position is a deal breaker.
I'm still torn: I am a libertarian to the core, but I can't be excited about voting for Bob Barr. He and his record don't stand up to scrutiny. I just don't know if I can trust the man.
So... I am actually considering voting for Ralph Nader. Even though I disagree with many of his conclusions and positions, I am willing to put my trust in him as a person. He always thinks through every position, draws on research from leading experts on whatever the issue is, and makes a logical conclusion. He is a great American. In my mind, he is the best person still in the race.
So, the question comes down to this: vote ideology (Barr), or vote for the person (Nader). What's a good libertarian to do?
I can't get excited for anyone else, so I guess I'll just write in Ron Paul! He's the real deal.
Ron Paul endorses Chuck Baldwin for President. Well, I guess I will follow the good Doctors lead.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-23/ron-paul-endorses-chuck-baldwin-for-pr...
"The greatest sins are those who remain silent in the face of evil"
Barr has two votes in Texas from my wife and I.
has ties to the cnp the rights crf i wrote in RON PAUL OCTOBER 26TH 2008 PERIOD
I can't believe people on here are actually supporting Barr. A vote for Barr is like a vote for McCain(especially) or Obama. When Barr was in congress he voted for the Iraq war, Patriot Act, ect...and now that he is not endorsed by the corps that were giving him money hes all of a sudden against all these things. Everyone forgave Barr for his voting record and all the liberals forgave Obama for his voting record too it seems because they think he will bring "Change." All I know is Baldwin, McKinney, and Nader are the REAL deal. Baldwin endorsed Paul and when Paul dropped out he endorsed Baldwin. Baldwin wouldn't even be running if Paul was still in the race. McKinney's voting record in congress is similar to Paul's and Kucinich voting "NO" to to the FISA Act, Patriot Act, National ID Act, Iraq war ect..and she has ALWAYS fought for people's rights. THEN THERE's Nader even though he is liberal Nader fought his whole life for people's rights, and to make sure we had clean air and water(his work is currently being ruined again in all catagories thanks to Washington and the corps).He is a great man and at 74 he's still fighting his heart out for this Country.He's visiting all state's no matter who supports him and broke the "record for most speeches in a certain amount of time/day," putting him in the history books. He's spreading the REAL message. I'll be voting for one of the "other" third party candidates. NO Barr, for me, Thank You.
Barr spoke out against the Patriot Act in Congress and has since renounced all that and converted to to the Libertarian party. The Constitution Party has a platform of religious rhetoric that Sarah Palin would be proud of and they have problems with free speech. We can't make progress by clinging to the past and old grudges.
With Barr, the only thing I could think of is people were supporting the party and rhetoric, like much of the Obama or McCain's support. McCain may support a little reform, but he's surrounded by Trilateral Comm, global imperialist puppet masters, George Schultz, Lawrence Eagleburger, Alexander Haig and even Henry Kissinger himself.
Obama earned the support of Brzezinski, the very co-founder of the Trilateral who pre-emptively created the Taliban threat to turn Afghanistan around from a religious tolerant, socialist government that was providing free health care to the poor into a tribal hell hole again, just to lure Russia into a conflict.
Practically all democrat and republican presidents have been Trilateral stooges since it was established by Brzezinski and Rockefeller. Heck, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Dick Cheney and Bush Sr. are members. NeoCons and NeoLibs agree on at least one thing, and that is the Trilateral.
http://www.augustreview.com/news_commentary/u.s._elections/obama_and_mcc...
Obama preaches peace, but cons good people to think smart wars are good now, while keeping them too dumb to recognize goepolitical resource strategies, as he plans to leave oil executives and private mercenaries and now an estimated 60,000 troops there and implies we should take their oil money but it's not about oil at all somehow, and plans to increase the military and create a national domestic police force of the same size as the military. It's hard to imagine he could get away with it, but he is persuasive and the democrats do control congress...
Obama on military service:
"And if you go to small towns, throughout the Midwest or the Southwest or the South, every town has tons of young people who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s not always the case in other parts of the country, in more urban centers. And I think it’s important for the president to say, this is an important obligation. If we are going into war, then all of us go, not just some.” http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=10162 - Reading the transcript, this is very much in context. Obama and McCain want to mobilize even more military, which costs more money, more lives and more destruction to satisfy certain elite political and financial imperatives.
Appearantly much of the nation swallowed the Obama faux peace pill whole, so a little support for Barr is not too bad or surprising.
If you score on a 0 to 10 scale each of the POTUS candidates, major and minor, on the philosophical/political position that "Charity Should Be Voluntary" and then multiple that score by the amount of national exposure that each POTUS candidate is getting, Barr wins hands down. He does not even have to talk about this position, the majority of literate people who watch political news programs understand thats his position, and a position consistent with an originalist view of the Constitution.
It's too bad the whole CFR/Trilalteral thing has failed to capture the imagination of Americans in the last 50 years, but thats the way it is.
It is good to hear Baldwin say that large corporations control too much of our lives and government, and that it would be amoral to deny some care or coverage, even if it is not free market. I can Baldwin and Nader pushing most of the same smart regulation and much of the same limitations of federal government.
I hope some free market fundamentalists could see that Nader isn't a rampant socialist anymore than Baldwin is rampant free market. They both believe in intelligent regulation, but err on different sides of the centrist spectrum. We would be lucky if these were our two choices. They discussed problems and solutions while Obama and McCain dance around real answers.
The entire alternative presidential debate, uncut, is hosted here http://becomeanexpert.info/?page_id=67 for now.
A regulated free market - a perfect oxymoron.
It makes me think of some bureaucrat saying, "We'd like to 'regulate' your right to life by taking it away."
Or, "We'd like to 'regulate' your liberty, by putting an end to it."
Or your right to pursue happiness.
Well, you have just as much right to pursue free trade between consenting adults.
Free minds, free markets.
If only our national choices included Baldwin and Nader. They do. I hope enough understand this and how they're different from the McBama twins. You mean consider constitutional rights for all Americans, stop twisting the market in exchange for payoffs, get out of illegal wars, stop trying to steal other country's oil, reduce the bloated military budget, pursue solar technology before nuclear? Those are options? I thought our choices were just which country to invade more next or which one we wanted monitoring everyone.
I agree with Nader and Baldwin in spirit, that defensive voting for the least evil of the Democrats or Republicans is a losing gambit. We could spend years analyzing them to figure out which is less evil in the long run, they're that bad and that close.
What's all this defeatist thought, oh, maybe next time we'll try to do something and get people together and decide to just back somebody ahead of time? If BO or McCain win, we have a new set of issues for next time, between SPP and FISA progression, just for starters.
We have little time to work out VP debates if we really wanted to work together, and the national candidates were serious. It still could be open to all 6 VP candidates who are on enough ballots to statistically win. They could compete, like in a race, or contest, where the other options get to ask and answer questions with or without the two elite picks.
I talked to Free and Equal represenative, Christina Tobin, who is trying to coordinate the Thursday debates and here is the latest update.
1 - There was some confusion on Sunday.
2 - The debates are scheduled this Thursday
3 - Nader and Baldwin have committed to debate. We've not heard from McKinney, and Barr has declined to debate in this forum with all 4 third party candidates.
4 - I am hoping that Trevor will update the http://www.thirdpartyticket.com/ website to reference these third party debates, and help avoid any possible confusion as to when and where.
5 - Whether C-SPAN will cover it is in the air, but please use the media contact if you want info to distribute it and help get the word out.
If you want to help carry them, and get your electoral qualified candidate media attention, please encourage them to participate. Also, send any media contacts to media@freeandequal.org or call them at (312)320-4101.
We can do this. We can show America that third parties are relevant. What's more, they are likely to actually debate about the real issues facing our nation. If anybody has any pull with Barr, please encourage him to participate and if you're a Green, help get the word to McKinney as well.
I think you've been emailing me and as I said in the emails I will update our site once I hear back from the Baldwin campaign that they will be there. I've contacted more than one person from their campaign by phone and email and have not heard back yet.
Thanks Trevor.
I have not heard from McKinney or Barr. I think McKinney wants to be there so I hope she got the message.
I'm not sure about a unifying candidate. Look what happened with Ron Paul. Try as he might to wake people up and point them to the actual candidates, many are still stuck on a single person than which of our options represent us best, or trying to find where we do and don't agree with other candidates, looking at them past their words, and trying to make them or things better.
Also, even though I endorse Nader, I think that Baldwin, McKinney and Barr bring some good issues to the table that are not at the top of Nader's list, and vice versa, and it is good to hear from all of them. I guess that's the point of the debates, is to see, out of our pro-liberty, anti-war, pro-transparent, representative government options, which strike the best chord with us.
There is too much danger of corruption, co-option or just plain fanaticism starting out with a "unifying candidate". I'd rather agree to allow those who can get on enough ballots voices, and work to make the ballot access laws more fair, something that Ron Paul agrees on and I think we all can. If we end up agreeing on a candidate that is acceptable to us all, great. If not, then that's Democracy as well.
For now though, the notice at http://www.freeandequal.org/ says only Nader and Baldwin have committed, and the notice at http://www.thirdpartyticket.com/ says only McKinney has. http://www.opendebates.org/ has no reference to any debates on Thursday. Is this real and does anybody know who is coordinating between everyone?
Can we help coordinate together somehow this time? Last Sunday, the candidates were confused who was supposed to confirm with who. The candidates are busy with their campaigns, trying to educate America and give us options, and save our nation, and all that, so can we help give them some help and use individual efforts to help the organizers pull this together? All here agree on having open debates. We have a chance this Thursday. Can we help make it a reality?
That's dangerous ground regarding a unifying candidate, but it would send a message-- that the third-party is so neglected that they must choose a nominee amongst them, as the two major parties do. I wonder if the media could ignore it, having a wide array of candidates debate with only one "winner". Those contending would probably need to accept terms to bow out from the race if they were not chosen.
Of course this is playing the democrats game of not giving democracy a fair chance-- and yet at the same time third party candidates stifle each other even though they share a stance on the majority of present issues.
I have to be honest. I prefer Nader but would vote for Baldwin or McKinney as the lesser of evils if I thought they had enough support to make a difference. I would not be able to agree ahead of time to take whoever won the third party debates, in case a fascist fake took it over, for example. That would be like blindly voting for a party again.
I think getting awareness out that there are 6 options, getting their debate media attention, and voting for one of anti-Patriot act, anti-Imperialist war, anti-FISA spying, pro-transparent, representative government options that also want to bring the fed in check sends a strong message. I think Nader has the best chance. Nader got so many more votes than any other 3rd party in 2000, Democrats blamed him for Bush instead of the voter fraud, supreme court or even the people that actually voted for Bush, and the democrats illegally used tax payer money in 2000 to buy frivilous lawsuites to bankrupt his campaign and get him off ballots. Voting for other real options, while not very unifying, still sends a message that the democrats and republicans are not the only, or even the best games in town. Nader is by far the largest majority third party, on the most ballots, and could use conservative input and support.
Would it be so bad to have him and Gonzalez hash it out with this corrupt congress to pave the way and open the debates and ballot access? Either way, him and Baldwin will clarify their similarities and differences tonight. On NPR yesterday, McKinney said she won't debate because mainly Nader's people put it together to give the third parties a debate voice. Nor did she want to be a part in helping, appearantly, as she has not called them back. She says she wants to open the political discourse and get the message out, but is refusing to do so, so she is off my consideration list unless she debates. Nobody's going to make her say anything she doesn't want to, so this is her chance to debate on C-SPAN live with Nader and Baldwin. If the format's not fair, she can work with them to make it fair. They answer their phones and haven't heard from her.
Greetings!
I just joined this site and I think that we need to develop a bulletproof strategy to take on the Two Party System for the 2012 election, and we need to start planning this now. I propose that all politicians, third parties and independent-minded voters that want to get a Ron Paul type unifying candidate into the debates should commit to an early debate and election cycle in 2010. This would give all of us enough time to throw all of our support behind one Presidential candidate so that we can stand up to the Republocrats. We could even design it so that the runner up would be inserted as the Vice-Presidential candidate. If this had happened for this cycle we might have been able to get a Paul/Nader or Nader/Paul candidacy into the debates. We would need at least 15% in national polls and I think this would be something that would attainable for the next go-around in 2012. I know that Jesse Ventura has thrown his name into the hat and I know that many others would be willing to join the fight to challenge the corrupt political system.
I wish that I had enough time to commit to organizing something like this, but I do not. I would like this idea to be spread around to everyone that would be able to organize this on a large scale and commit to consolidating the forces of the Third Party Movement. The way I see it, it will be the only way to break through the political stranglehold that the Two Party System has on us.
Thanks for any help you can provide in working towards this!
There are FAR too many differences between the alternative party candidates to be able to come up with ONE who would be acceptable to all. Even Ron Paul was perceived as too far Right for some and too far Left for others, and he was the most appealing candidate to come along since Clinton1. The fact is, we don't have a Two-Party country. There are at least 5 different philosophies in our political spectrum, and our elections should reflect that.
I think that the Campaign 4 Liberty has it right - pledge an oath to uphold the constitution, and may the best message & messenger win! Our mission should be to break down the stranglehold that the Democratic and Republican parties have on the electoral system to enable greater diversity and choice and less division among the people.
I will feel bad if vote for a Baldwin theocracy so I will reluctantly do what Shelly is doing and vote for the Libertarian platform. Before Barr snubbed Ron Paul at the 3rd party press conference, I sent him donations and I didn't send a penny after the no-show. I hope that both Barr and Baldwin get a lot of votes since they are both doing a good job of spreading the liberty message. Voting for Barr helps the 2012 LP nominee get automatic ballot access and I think the LP has learned its lesson and will nominate a true libertarian next time so I should start supporting him right now with my vote.
It was the libertarian philosophy that drove me to campaign so hard for Ron Paul, and I have to support it. I really liked Chuck Baldwin's writings, but saw him for what he was - a Pastor who supported Ron Paul. While he may support a limited constitutional government, I think he would use his faith to interpret the constitution to fit his view of morality.
Our local meetup groups have been fractured by those who would judge and exclude others (mostly John Birch members) - the exact opposite of how Ron Paul brought us all together in the first place. The JBS brought a lot of money and influence into the Constitution Party and Baldwin's campaign, and I cannot - will not - align myself with them. Plus, in CA, he is not on the ballot and we will not know until next week if he has qualified as a write-in candidate.
I am not thrilled with Bob Barr, but I think he's the best choice on my ballot! I am making a conscious effort to vote FOR a candidate, as opposed to voting out of fear and hatred. Besides, I think the Congressional races are of far greater importance considering the near-certainty of an Obama Presidency.
Has Barr confirmed he will participate?
If you are a Barr supporter, can you tell me what you think of him pushing the anti-liberty war on drugs, partriot act and supporting the unconstututional Iraq war? I heard some of his supporters blame Ron Paul somehow for his support of one of those things, but I did not get the arguement. How long has it been since the 180, and are you just supporting the party?
If I voted what a party says they stand for, I'd vote democratic, but they are a wasteful, fascist, pro-war, big money characterization of a people's party, so I'm going Nader. I'm not so sure on the Greens, but they are seeming more disciplined and organized than I thought they were.
BOB BARR IS LESS GOVERNMENT, LESS TAXES AND MORE FREEDOM!!! THAT MAKES HIM AMERICA'S SOLUTION!!!
Libertarian U.S. Presidential candidate Bob Barr does not believe that the federal government should be 'bailing out' any quasi-government nor private sector business organization. He believes that allowing the 'free market system to work' will more firmly solve this current economic problem. He believes that the Community Reinvestment Act is 'bad legislation' that needs to be overhauled. Finally, he believes that 'any executive' in these business organizations, who personally profited monetarily thru mismanagement, should be prosecuted!
As evidenced by their votes, Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain believe that these federal 'bailouts' should occur. They also believe that federal spending should increase in general. The National Taxpayers Union released a report on September 25th. It analyzes each of the three candidates in their 'first year' federal budget spending proposals as President. Barack Obama would 'add' $292,954,000,000 to annual spending! John McCain would 'add' $92,437,000,000 to annual spending! Bob Barr would 'cut' $200,928,000,000 from annual spending!!!
You can read the cover letter of the report at http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=1048&org_name=NTUF and the report at http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=141 .
You can read more about Bob Barr in general at http://www.bobbarr2008.com/ which is his campaign's website. Here is one of his videos http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5waL8brexY and one of his articles http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-barr/economic-chaos-increases_b_132195... each on the current 'bailout' problem.
RAISE THE BARR FOR PRESIDENT! RAISE THE BARR FOR THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY!! RAISE THE BARR FOR AMERICA!!! VOTE FOR 'THE BIGGEST CHANGE' ON NOVEMBER 4TH BY VOTING FOR BOB BARR FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!!!!!!
I expected more from Dr. Paul than to endorse anyone.
I think Sunday fell apart because we did not coordinate well enough with the candidates. I know Nader and McKinney are aware of the debate this Thursday. Has anybody contacted Baldwin and Barr, and received any actual feedback from them? Obama said he would not participate in debates outside the commission on presidential debate's, but what about McCain?
http://washingtonindependent.com/257/obama-rebuffs-google-debate-as-mysp...
So far, McKinney is the only officially confirmed candidate...
I spoke to Darrell Castle yesterday, VP candidate for Constitution Party, who stated that either Baldwin or he will appear at the debate in three days.