State of Oklahoma Jobs

Recently, I wrote an article explaining my views on why Ron Paul was able togain so much support from the common man and raise the kind of money he didwhile Bob Barr was not. I half expected to get some emails from Bob Barrsupporters telling me I was wrong, but that never happened. Instead, I got afew messages from Chuck Baldwin supporters who took issue with the one sentenceI wrote about him. In the interest of fairness and to further clarify my pointof view for some of my readers who may be seeking the best alternative for thismost confusing election cycle, I thought I’d offer up a bit more analysis ofthe third party candidates.

First, let me make it clear that my basic views on voting haven’t changed. Istill believe that most third parties are significantly better (at least insome respects) than either the Democrats or the Republicans. It’s sad to thinkthat a hundred million or more votes are going to be wasted on men like BarackObama and John McCain who obviously couldn’t care less about the foundationsthis country was built upon. It’s insanity to keep electing these same partypoliticians over and over again and expect to get different results. I say thebig government statists have had their opportunities and they’ve led thisnation down the path to becoming a nightmarish mix of police, nanny, andsurveillance states that even George Orwell would have had problems imagining.It is well past time the stranglehold this duopoly has on the nation was brokenand someone else got the opportunity to lead. The change that this nation needswill not come from the establishment candidates who simply pay lip service tothe concept of change. Perhaps the change needs to come from the people. Wemust be the change we seek. To help accomplish this, we need to change thetypes of people we vote into office. Unfortunately, I don’t foresee the vastmajority of Americans suddenly becoming enlightened.

There are, indeed, a couple of very important issues that all the thirdparty candidates agree on, and their points of view are in opposition to theestablishment candidates’. War is a big issue where the third parties disagreewith the Republicans and the Democrats. I know that Democrats will say thattheir man wants to end the war in Iraq, but we are involved in more countriesthan Iraq and the Democrats will carry on with occupying those and theycertainly don’t want out of Iraq soon enough. While third party candidates arecalling for immediate withdrawal of troops, Mr. McCain wants war with no endand I can’t be certain what Mr. Obama wants. If one wishes to vote on thisissue alone, then any of the third party candidates would be a better choicethan the two the establishment hopes you’ll vote for.

The other issue I think the third party candidates agree on is the issue ofcleaning up the corruption in the federal government. This corruption runs deepand it stems, in my opinion, from the stranglehold on power the twoestablishment parties have enjoyed for far too long. I have believed this to betrue for most of my life and I have voted accordingly. This year, for the firsttime since Ross Perot ran, I believe I saw a breath of life in the struggle totake the power of the establishment back from the elite and return it to thepeople. It would give this journalist great hope to see just ten percent or soof the electorate voting third party, if for no other reason than to send amessage to the establishment that we grow weary of their failed policies andare looking for a genuine shift in direction. If twenty percent of the peoplewere to do so it would be fantastic, the politicians would take notice, and Iwould be exuberant. The more people that can be convinced to vote third party,any third party, the better in my opinion, and that works for anyone who wantsto send a message by writing in any candidate who advocates freedom or evenwriting in a “none of the above” vote.

That said, I believe that certain third party candidates are better choicesthan others. Bob Barr still hasn’t earned my trust, despite the fact that he’sjoined the Libertarian Party and says he will abide by their principles. Merelystating something doesn’t make it so. Yes, I do believe he is a smallergovernment type of guy, but he still seems like the kind of person who issimply interested in gaining power, and the more the better. How am I tobelieve someone who has made a career out of equivocating and pandering?Perhaps he has changed and he is sincere, but I just don’t feel comfortablesupporting him. He still strikes me as a big government politician, albeit onewho has decided to call himself a Libertarian. Perhaps in a few years if he hasthe chance to prove himself I would support him, but not right now. In spite ofall that, he is a much better pick than either the Republican or the Democratcandidates and I don’t begrudge his supporters when they decide to vote forhim. At least they are sending a message to the establishment that they don’tfeel represented by either of those parties.

Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader are also candidates that have their faults,in my opinion, but either one of them would be a better choice than Obama orMcCain. Both those third party candidates have very good intentions, I’ve nodoubt of their sincerity in their desire to help people and I am sympathetic tothat, but using the power of the state to achieve such ends is nothing morethan forced wealth redistribution. If they were to start a private charity Iwould certainly be willing to donate what I could afford, but forcing people todonate is morally objectionable. Both these candidates feel that government isthe answer to too many of our problems, most of which are government created,where I feel that the private sector could do a better, more efficient job.They do, however, at least seem to have their hearts in the right place and Imust commend them for that. They are also seemingly more honest and forthrightthan the average politician. At least they don’t try to hide their socialisttendencies and will not waffle or flip flop on issues. This, again, puts themone step above most politicians. Again, I would not fault anyone who decided tosupport either McKinney or Nader. Certainly there are many former Democrats whoare fed up with their party cozying up to the Republicans who would prefer tosee either one of these people in office than the Democrats’ candidate. I say,go ahead and vote that way, if that is your wish, and don’t waste your vote onObama. It’s time to send the establishment a message.

This brings me to Chuck Baldwin. I have a lot to say about him, enough thatI think he deserves an article dedicated to him. When I wrote a couple of weeksback – in an article which was supposed to be about Bob Barr’s failure to raisemoney – a simple sentence: “Chuck Baldwin is also a man of good intentions whoclaims to be a strict constitutionalist, and yet he wants to maintain agovernment presence in certain areas of one’s personal life where governmentpresence does not belong.” I was sent a few emails from a couple of Mr.Baldwin’s supporters questioning the meaning of that statement. I wrote thatsentence because that was the genuine impression that I had of his campaignfrom looking at his website, looking at the Constitution Party’s platform, andlistening to the opinions of some of those whose opinions I respect. I reportedmy objections to Mr. Baldwin’s stances on some of the issues and I was shownthat my impressions were most likely wrong. Looking more deeply into the man’spolitical beliefs, reading his words in interviews and listening and watchingsome of his Youtube videos has caused me to reconsider his candidacy. Evenbefore I did this I felt that if I was going to vote for someone other than awrite in, it would most likely be him. Now I know beyond a shadow of a doubtthat he is the best third party candidate out there for someone concerned aboutsmaller government and personal liberty.

I will go into more detail explaining why I felt as I did and why I’vechanged my mind in another article. For now, I will conclude by saying ChuckBaldwin is not the perfect candidate for president, but neither was Ron Paul.There are some things I disagree with both these candidates on, but these arerelatively minor issues when compared to the bigger issues of ending allforeign wars, bringing all our troops home, guarding our own borders, repealingunconstitutional laws, restoring lost civil liberties, returning to aconstitutional monetary system and shearing down the federal government to aconstitutional size. In these and other areas, Chuck Baldwin’s stances mirrorRon Paul’s policies. He is on the ballot in 37 states and available as awrite-in in 10 more. They are still trying to get on the ballot inPennsylvania. Citizens of Oklahoma and North Carolina will not be able tolegally vote for him if he is their choice, to the shame of those two states. Icertainly can understand why anyone would support this man and he seems anexcellent choice to spend your vote on.