About Me

In writing the "About Me" portion of this blog I thought about the purpose of the blog - namely, preventing the growth of Socialism & stopping the Death Of Democracy in the American Republic & returning her to the "liberty to abundance" stage of our history. One word descriptions of people's philosophies or purposes are quite often inadequate. I feel that I am "liberal" meaning that I am broad minded, independent, generous, hospitable, & magnanimous. Under these terms "liberal" is a perfectly good word that has been corrupted over the years to mean the person is a left-winger or as Mark Levin more accurately wrote in his book "Liberty & Tyranny" a "statist" - someone looking for government or state control of society. I am certainly not that & have dedicated the blog to fighting this. I believe that I find what I am when I consider whether or not I am a "conservative" & specifically when I ask what is it that I am trying to conserve? It is the libertarian principles that America was founded upon & originally followed. That is the Return To Excellence that this blog is named for & is all about.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Third Party Debate Shows We Have More Than Two Choices

I have discussed the Third Party Debate seen live on C-SPAN last night with several people today – hope you saw it because the debaters' directness & sincerity was refreshing after watching the series of four nationally televised debates among the Democrat & Republican candidates earlier this month whose positions were carefully orchestrated based on political calculations to win over one group or another.
Four candidates for President from the Green Party (Jill Stein), Justice Party (Rocky Anderson), Constitution Party (Virgil Goode), & Libertarian Party (Gary Johnson) participated in the Third Party Debate moderated by Larry King – who did an excellent job of controlling the time allotments & only once or twice had to keep the debaters on topic.
The debate was presented by Free and Equal Elections.  Click here to learn more about this group who is organizing a second Third Party Debate but this time only between the top two on-line vote getters from the four candidates debating last night.  This second debate will be held on October 30 on C-SPAN.
There are more people eligible to vote who do not vote than will vote for any presidential candidate.
I am an undecided voter & believe the Democrat & Republican candidates in the 2012 presidential election have produced three choices for the electorate:
1.  ABBO – anybody but BO.  The problem is the "anybody" turns out to be Mitt & anyone who votes for Mitt has no idea what he really will do if elected – you can just hope or believe.  Still the desire to oust BO will make this type of voter vote for Mitt.
2.  Do you want to waste your vote?  Gary Johnson answered the wasted vote question last night by saying - "Wasted Vote? The only wasted vote is when you vote for someone you don't TRULY believe in."  That describes BO & Mitt to a T.
3.  Need for a third (or more) parties.  I have advocated for years that we need more than two major parties (currently two wings of one Big Government Party).  To me you can't have enough parties & if you have more than two viable parties many presidential elections will be decided in the House of Representatives (who vote for the three candidates who received the most electoral votes) per the Constitution when no one candidate receives a majority of electoral votes (currently 270).  A much better system than two parties taking turns being in power.
If any of this interests you I suggest watching the next Third Party Debate on October 30.  You can't start sooner than this election to break the two party cycle that produces congresses with under 20% approval ratings but 90% incumbent reelection rates or candidates for president who we vote for to their benefit & our expense.


  1. Hi Doug - We’ve had third party candidates: Wallace in 68, Anderson in 80, and Perot in 96. Wallace was an anarchist who was paralyzed from an assassin’s bullet. However, Perot and Anderson were viable candidates and were included in the primetime debates. Perhaps the closest the country came to electing a third party candidate was former President Teddy Roosevelt and his Bull Moose Party in 1912. The simple truth is the country rejected their campaigns. For whatever reason, history is not on the side of third party Candidates. A vote for anyone besides Romney is a vote for BO.

    RTE - I agree the third or more parties movement will take a mindset change alright. I am not looking to repeat history but something new like the Tea Party being the start – which is what I have always considered it. My postings certainly convey that idea. I am hoping that BO & Mitt – the worst two candidates I have ever seen - help propel this third party movement which is why I put out the last posting. A vote for either one of them just perpetuates the slide we have been on for a long time as we always seem to have the choice of voting for the lesser of two evils.

  2. I agree with you Doug, we need a 3rd party, but as I see it - a 3rd party needs BIG Money behind it. If not, it will fade away.
    The old expression money talks is true. The exception is when a person is well known, like T.Roosevelt, of Bull Moose fame.
    I do not like to make above comment - but it is true. You have to have big money to wage a campaign. You need national exposure, you need your face to be seen by MILLIONS of people, not thousands.

  3. If we had a system of proportional representation, it would make sense to highlight the alternative choice we have with third parties. The problem is, we don't. To illustrate the point, if I am the best typist in town but a mediocre accountant, which path do I pursue? Economics dictates that I pursue accounting because accounting pays more.

    Analogizing to US elections, should I vote for Gary Johnson, who supports the FairTax but has no chance of being elected, or should I vote for Mitt Romney? If this were a European country with proportional representations, I could vote for Johnson's party and have my voice heard in Parliament. But here we have direct representation. As with economic choices, the political choice is to vote for Romney, even though he is only second best at representing me. A vote for Johnson is a vote for Obama.

  4. Doug - As you know I am on vacation. Went to Williamsburg for the first time. I found a new hero Patrick Henry. Before I only knew his "Give me liberty or give me death" quote. (Thanks public education!).

    As you also know I was a registered Libertarian in 1976, and have voted for numerous Libertarians over the years.

    This is not the election to encourage 3rd party candidates. I firmly believe this is a pivotal election.

    This election is more akin to whether we stay loyal to the King or fight for our independence.
    We may end up with a big government President like Washington rather than an ideologically pure person like Henry. But at least we will be free of the King If Obama is reelected, and he may will be if we get defections to 3rd parties, we will lose our Liberty.

  5. Hey Doug

    For both selfish personal and very patriotic reasons I will vote for
    Mitt. Why? 3rd Party vote even if its sends a strong message, is a
    vote for BO. A BO reelection will severely damage my current career
    path. The Investment Banking industry is shrinking in large part to
    BO harassment and demonization. Dodd Frank following SOX is a strong
    two punch combo. Add now BO attacking banks for ‘predatory’ loans
    after same banks ‘succumbed’ to Fed pressure to provide toxic
    mortgages, is indicative of full scale war against the banks. Ahhhh –
    just as Saul Alinsky called for as a pre-req to destroy capitalism.

    A 2nd BO term will not last more than 2 years. Before total debt
    reaches $20 Trillion (16.2 Trillion today), when (if) BO gets a call
    from major foreign investors stating they will dump $2 trillion dollar
    denominated securities, BO will be so happy . He will reach out to
    his global Leftists and call for a Communist New World Order. He will
    be rebuffed but throw the US into economic chaos as we have never
    encountered before.

    Mitt, per his stated goals of reducing Fed Gov to under 20% of GDP,
    and massive expansion of developing oil and gas (thus reducing our
    trade deficit by 1.5% of GDP down from 3%) will have more time in
    getting such a call (and this call may be averted). And if we reach a
    Day of Reckoning with our global creditors, Mitt will then be able to
    restructure our debt in a way that would today be political suicide.
    We will then finally get our financial house in order and start a
    long but productive recovery . This then is my ‘patriotic’ reason for
    supporting Mitt. And I blog now with Miami Herald to help him win
    Florida. Will hit the Ohio and Wisconsin papers this week too.

    BTW - watch out for November surprise - like Nov 2-3. Or if Tropical
    Storm Sandi creates extreme economic chaos - domestic martial law,
    suspension of election. This may be the 'perfect' storm. BO may not
    have to stage a fake right wing assignation attempt for martial law.
    Marxist revolutionaries tend not to go away quietly.