Democrats are Not Immune from Ignorance

Over the last few years I have become very acquainted with politics. I formed my views during the Bush presidency, and they have remained rather stable since then. I disagreed with just about everything George Bush did as president. I disagreed with his economic policies, his foreign policies, and his huge power grab for the executive. However, upon voicing my opinions I was referred to by republicans as un-American and unpatriotic. I felt this sort of ignorant name-calling was unique to the neoconservative side of the American political system. However, recent events have proven me wrong.

Ever since Barack Obama entered office and his policies have come under attack from Americans in opposition to them, I have noticed something about democrats: they are not immune from using ignorant, ad hominem attacks. I can’t say I was surprised by this fact, but I am severely disheartened and ashamed of the democrats for allowing themselves to fall into this trap. I had gotten used to republican propaganda, which went so low as to use September 11th as a whipping boy for all of us who refused to believe that preventative war was needed to provide security. I got used to the phrase, “If you don’t like America you can get out!” They almost had me convinced I hated America until I remembered that my arguments were based on facts and statistics, instead of emotionally charged personal attacks. However, where democrats once stood with me in opposing these irrational accusations, they are now the accusers.

Read the rest here.

Watch the Third-Party Debate

Last night, [Free and Equal Elections] sponsored a third-party debate which aired live on C-SPAN. Only Chuck Baldwin and Ralph Nader showed up. You can watch the whole thing here.

Tags: debate, video

Democrat, GOP stranglehold stifles third party candidates

Be honest. What have you learned from the first two presidential debates? Do you expect to be any more enlightened by Wednesday night's third and final showdown between Barack Obama and John McCain?

If you're like my friends and associates outside the newsroom, you're setting the bar pretty low. If these "debates" have proven anything, they confirm our two-party choice is dumb and dumber (you pick).


"We have a one-party system designed by the parties," Nader said this spring in the shadow of Philadelphia's historic Independence Hall. Would the Founding Fathers be impressed with what's onstage at Hofstra University Wednesday night? I'm betting they'd vote independent.

Full Story

Tags: 2008

Chuck Baldwin: A Wasted Vote

When asked why they will not vote for a third party candidate, many people will respond by saying something like, "He cannot win." Or, "I don't want to waste my vote." It is true: America has not elected a third party candidate since 1860. Does that automatically mean, however, that every vote cast for one of the two major party candidates is not a wasted vote? I don't think so.

In the first place, a wasted vote is a vote for someone you know does not represent your own beliefs and principles. A wasted vote is a vote for someone you know will not lead the country in the way it should go. A wasted vote is a vote for the "lesser of two evils." Or, in the case of John McCain and Barack Obama, what we have is a choice between the "evil of two lessers."

Albert Einstein is credited with saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. For years now, Republicans and Democrats have been leading the country in the same basic direction: toward bigger and bigger government; more and more socialism, globalism, corporatism, and foreign interventionism; and the dismantling of constitutional liberties. Yet, voters continue to think that they are voting for "change" when they vote for a Republican or Democrat. This is truly insane!

Full Article

Tags: 2008