Monday, September 8, 2008

Bob Barr

I am planning on voting for Bob Barr, the libertarian candidate, in the upcoming Presidential election. I am not crazy about Bob Barr the candidate, but I must say I love the platform.

Voting for Bob Barr, at least in my case, is making a statement. I do not like Barack Obama's ideas and viewpoints, as he is very liberal. But I also do not like Jon McCain's viewpoints (See post below). What do some/most voters do when they do not like either candidate? They either decide they are not going to vote or they vote for the "lesser of the two evils."

First, allow me to adress the second option, and why I think this is a horrible mentality that must change. People will tell you that third party candidates simply "take away votes from this or that candidate." That argument will come up every presidential election, but is essential that this advice be ignored. Here is a personal example: A few months ago I said I will vote for Ron Paul instead of Jon McCain. In response to this comment, someone said to me that "this is not the year to make a statement" and that it is a "pure numbers game" and "a vote for anyone other than Jon McCain is a vote for Obama." When it gets down to it, how silly is this argument! My vote was never FOR Jon McCain, and it definetely is not a vote for Barack Obama! My vote is not intended for Jon McCain, someone who does not believe the same things as I do, and is certainly not conservative. My vote is not for him, so it is hard for me to believe these candidates are "taking away" votes from McCain. Why is McCain entitled to my vote? It is important to note that our political system will not change if people who are not happy with a candidate and STILL chooses to vote for them. The precedent they are setting is one of indifference to those individuals opinions, as politicians and parties will figure they have your vote no matter what because the only other alternative is a more conservative/liberal candidate. Do not let someone tell you a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote; it has more value than you know.

I really do think that everyone should vote. It is an extremely powerful right that is given to us. A vote is your voice, and if you are not happy with how things are going in politics, it is even more important that you do vote. If you do not like either of the mainstream candidates, i urge you to look at the third party candidates. You do not have to agree with all their views, as this will rarely happen as I'm sure you have seen. But please, above all, vote.

Now I would like to go over a few of Bob Barr's Positions:

He respects the constitution.
He wants to drastically cut government spending. The USA now has over a 9 trillion dollar debt. The budget is not balanced, and the national debt continues to increase daily.
He is pro-privacy: he wants unlawful government intrusion to end. He obviously opposes the national ID card.
He is against the Iraq war and views the invasion and occupation of Iraq as two huge mistakes. Hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American (and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives) have been lost in Iraq.
Is pro-property rights; does not believe the government should be able to confiscate private property and sees it as a serious attack on individual liberty.
Tax Reform beginning with immediately lowering government spending.
Foreign Intervention: America has hundreds of thousands of troops deployed overseas with over 700 permanent military bases. Bob Barr wants to bring the troops home and end this foreign intervention that makes us financially worse-off as well as makes America less safe.

For more information check out his campaign page

To sum it up, vote! And do not let anyone tell you a vote for a third party candidate is a "wasted" vote.


Budsy Jean said...

I agree with you D.C. In my opinion, a 'wasted' vote is one which is cast void of thought and void of conscience. Voting for 'the lesser of two evils' really goes against the basic principles of our democracy. A vote based solely on party lines for the sake of the party is a 'wasted' vote. Rarely does one party's list of candidates reflect one's actual entire belief system. It sure makes it easy to vote, but should selecting the course of our country's future be easy? Shouldn't we have to think about it once in awile? Maybe a little forethought would help us all. I'm also of the Libertarian mindset, likely moreso than you are. So, in my case, you are preaching to the chior.

jpberthiaume said...

I would say my politics probably aren't that much different than yours, though my mentality on voting is quite different. I think we have a moral obligation to do everything in our power to stand for human life and dignity when it comes to abortion, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, euthanasia, and gay marriage. In all five of these cases there is no gray area -- they are all simply wrong. Unfortunately many of these issues (and a growing number of others), particularly abortion (though certainly not limited to) are tied up in the Supreme Court, a court that has continuously overstepped its bounds in making law. Keep in mind that it's a lifetime membership to this court, too, so the wrong person being elected president could lead to the nomination of justices that can set the court back 40-50 years OR MORE. Because of that, we simply can't take the chance that someone such as Obama would be elected.

As Christians, there are no more important issues than the five I mentioned above (often referred to as "the five non-negotiables." It is our moral obligation to do everything we can at the voting booth to uphold the dignity of human life at it's most basic and fundamental level. Those five issues are, simply, ALWAYS wrong. War is not so simply wrong (and neither is the death penalty, though I happen to be against it in the United States). Our moral obligation, as Christians, is to vote for the best candidate that has a realistic chance of winning (unless both are so bad in regard to these five issues that you can't vote for either in good conscience).

If you think your moral obligation is to buck the current system, this must start far, far before election day. It has to start at the bottom of the roots in the grassiest area known. I was in Ron Paul's camp for a long time until it was apparent he could not win. However, when we as Christians enter the voting booth, we have a moral obligation to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves, and the only reasonable choice we can make is for someone who will stand correctly on the five non-negotiables and who will nominate the best justices. If we don't, we'll have to answer for it one day and it's not a battle I will then want to fight.