Saturday, November 1, 2008

Ralph Nader: The Left Conservative choice.

By Daniel Bein

During the 2008 election season I have often found myself fantasizing about a world in which the 2008 Presidential race is a heated contest between front runners Chuck Baldwin and Ralph Nader. If this pleasant fiction were instead reality, I could scarcely complain if either man took the White House. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and we are instead left with the same old choice between two utterly disastrous candidates.

John McCain, the hawk of all hawks, is easily the more revolting of the two, and despite Obama's liberalism and undying devotion to the big government war machine, he is far less dangerous than McCain. Even with a Democratic congress at his beck and call, Obama is not a neoconservative, and it is precisely this group (for which John McCain is the poster child) that must never be allowed to inhabit the White House again. McCain is also a narcissistic hot head who shouldn't be allowed to make decisions which effect the lives of millions.

So the principled voter is left with three choices: third party candidates, a write in which may or may not count, or abstaining. I will be at the polls on the fourth and will not refrain from casting a vote against the abysmal two party system, so abstaining is not an option. And since South Carolina doesn't count write ins, I won't make what would otherwise be the most satisfying choice and write in Ron Paul. So my only option is to choose the best third party candidate.

Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney can be dismissed straight away. McKinney is wrong on far too much and Barr is both an egomaniac (and potential Republican mole) who has had an overwhelmingly negative effect on the Libertarian Pary. By selling out to him the Libertarians have ruined their chances of becoming a vehicle for the liberty movement that Ron Paul launched with his insurgent campaign for the Republican nomination.

So that leaves Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin and independent candidate Ralph Nader. A friend of mine has argued that principled conservatives should vote for Chuck Baldwin and principled leftists for Ralph Nader. While I agree with this logic, as a self professed "left conservative", I like aspects of both men and have had a very hard time choosing between them. Chuck Baldwin is right on the majority of the issues, and his commitment to small government is more to my liking that Nader's affinity for government solutions such as universal health care, whereas on social issues I lean towards Nader and am not a fan of Baldwin's fundamentalism. But Baldwin's decentralism almost negates this, and the decision remains difficult even after weighing the pros and cons.

So I must agree with Dylan that since Nader has access to more ballots (and with Justin Raimondo that he is the most vocal opponent of tyranny and empire in the race), a vote for Nader is the best way to make a statement against the American military-industrial empire. For this reason Nader just barely edges out Chuck Baldwin for me. In a saner world, where one of these two men had a chance of winning, I would not be unhappy with either. Both would be a good choice for those committed to sending the message that empire and excess will not be tolerated.


Glen M said...

If Senator Obama wins this election, the following is what it has taken to get a very questionable, extremely inexperienced, very junior first time Senator past the mark:

1. Senator Obama’s campaign is outspending Senator McCain’s campaign 4 to 1 or more in some locations. This is due to Senator Obama backing out of an agreement he made with Senator McCain.
2. Senator Obama’s campaign has opened up about 700 offices nation-wide versus less than 100 than Senator McCain’s campaign has opened up.
3. The mainstream media has been completely biased against Senator McCain.
4. Biased organizations, such as ACORN, have received contributions from Senator Obama, have been openly supporting Senator Obama, and are under investigation for committing voter registration fraud in multiple states favoring Senator Obama.
5 An enormous number of biased celebrities have been supporting Senator Obama and speaking out against Senator McCain.
6. Even though Congress is very unpopular, both sides are controlled by the democrats and have been making biased statements against Senator McCain.
7. Senator McCain is disadvantaged because of the unpopularity of the incumbent President.
8. All four of the debate moderators lean to the left and were not 100% fair.

Even with all of the biased and unfair things mentioned above that are running against Senator McCain, Senator Obama only has a narrow lead. Should he not be way out in front? I have heard people state that on the news from both campaigns. That should tell you something. Also, Senator Obama pulled a cheap shot on Senator McCain and the American public in regards to campaign financing. Both campaigns agreed to use public financing during the presidential campaign. At the last moment, Senator Obama backed out of his agreement and took private financing, giving Senator Obama a significant advantage over Senator McCain in financing his campaign. In addition, Senator Obama is not being totally open as to where all his contributions are coming from. But even though Senator Obama took a sucker punch and tricked Senator McCain and all Americans by backing out of his agreement, Senator McCain is keeping with his word and using public financing. This is severely disadvantaging Senator McCain’s campaign financing by putting much lower caps on the amount of money he will have available. This is the reason Senator Obama can outspend Senator McCain 4 to 1. This also shows that Senator Obama does not keep his campaign promises, just like his past campaign promises.

Just imagine what it will be like when you have both the House of Representatives and the Senate controlled by the democrats, and Senator Obama in the Whitehouse signing everything that comes across his desk from them. In other words, the person writing the check will also be the one cashing it. There will be no “checks and balances”, especially if the democrats pick up a few more seats in the Senate and it becomes filibuster-proof, which means they will have a monopoly. Again, there will be no checks and balances. We will have higher taxes, more government, and fewer rights. They have already promised all of those things. You will have a government that will tax the people that are creating the jobs so they can “spread the wealth around”. Who do you think creates the jobs in this country? Have you ever seen a business owned by a poor person? Are they the ones starting small businesses and creating jobs? Obviously not! So we have established the fact that the people that own the small businesses and create the jobs are NOT the poor. So lets talk about what is going to happen when they start taxing the people that do own the small businesses that create the jobs.

So what do you think will happen when they start taxing the small business owners? First, jobs will be lost. They will not be able to afford to keep the same amount of people they have now – they will have to let people go. In addition, they will not be able to expand their businesses and hire more people. The second thing that will happen is that prices will go up. Do you think businesses will not raise the cost of their products and services to offset the extra taxes they have to pay? This should be obvious. The prices will go up on everything and will affect everybody – to include the middle class and the poor. When you go to the grocery store, the food prices will be higher. When you go buy a car, the prices will be higher. When you go to the department store the prices are going to be higher. Put yourself in the shoes of a business owner; if your expenses go up, would you not raise the price of your products to pay for them? Of course you would! And taxes are an expense.

Now lets talk about presidential qualifications. When a federal employee or a member of the military has a need to have access to classified materials, they would need to get a security clearance. A security clearance attempts to certify that an individual is of high moral character and does not pose a security risk. If a federal employee or a member of the military admits to using a dangerous drug, such as cocaine, they will not be eligible for a security clearance. In addition, an admitted cocaine user would not be able to get in the military and if he or she is a federal employee, he or she would be moved to a position of lesser responsibility and not have access to classified materials. Senator Obama has admitted to using cocaine in his book that he wrote. As a candidate for president, should he not be held up to the same standards of a federal employee or a member of our military? As President, he is going to be exposed to an enormous amount of classified materials, have his finger on the nuke button, and be the commander in chief of the strongest military in the world. Would you not want someone in that position that can qualify for a security clearance?

Another point I would like to make is in regards to Senator Obama’s experience, which is a drop in the bucket compared to Senator McCain’s. With the world and the economy in such a delicate position, I cannot imagine why anyone would not want the most experienced person in the Whitehouse. Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and even Senator Obama’s running mate, Senator Joe Biden, have made statements to the fact that Senator Obama is not experienced enough to be President and that the presidency is not the type of job for on-the-job training. They also said that Senator McCain brings a lifetime of experience to the table. Senator Obama’s running mate, Senator Biden, even said he would even be honored to run “with” his friend John McCain. These individuals are now claiming that they said that during the primaries when they were running against Senator Obama. Does that mean they were lying then, or now? Senator Obama claimed that he had more diverse foreign policy experience because he lived overseas as a kid. Living overseas does not give you foreign policy experience, unless you are an Ambassador, which he was not. If it did, then Senator John McCain would again best Senator Obama’s record since he has lived overseas being a member of the military.

What issue or issues are you going to base your voting decision on? Will it be the economy? National defense? Education? There are so many out there. Because of the current economic situation, a large number of you are going to base your decision on who is best for the economy. I would hope that I have answered this question for you earlier on in this article. Such as pointing out which candidate has promised to raise taxes and spend more reducing jobs and raising the cost to live. But just in case I have not, I have a couple additional items for you to think about. If you look at all of the campaign promises on Senator Obama’s web site, you will see hundreds of them. How is he going to pay for them? I think I answered that already. But, if you add of the costs of all of them, mathematically it is going to cost us a lot more than he will be able to raise in taxes. So many of these are going to be just like so many of his previous campaign promises – they won’t get done. Maybe the economy is not the best issue to use in making a decision for president. What about national defense? In my opinion, if you don’t have a secure nation, the rest of the issues are moot. With Russia and China outspending us two fold to build up their military; with Iran and North Korea toying around with nukes and making threats; with Russia making friends and conducting military exercises not too far from our back door in Venezuela; with Russia helping Iran build nuclear processing material plants; and with the terrorist threat growing in Pakistan (a nuclear country), Afghanistan, Africa, and several other countries throughout the world, I want the most experienced and tested person in that office. Not some junior Senator that has absolutely no experience in national security. The economy is important, but national defense is a must. Remember, if our country is not secure, then the economy means nothing, our freedom is in jeopardy, and our lives as we know them today could easily be drastically changed in a moments notice. Just ask the citizens of the country of Georgia. One last point: Have you see who is openly supporting Senator Obama in the news? Iran and the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah have made public statements that they would prefer Sen. Obama to win. Go figure.

So after reading this, where do you stand? The differences in these two candidates are very apparent. On one hand, you have an individual with many years of applicable “real world” experience, has been a public servant and leader for about 50 years, has a proven record to reduce taxes and government spending, and is dedicated to growing the US economy and jobs. On the other hand, you have an individual with very little experience, questionable associations, has a proven record to increase taxes, government spending, and earmarks, and has promised to increase taxes and government spending. As I said at the beginning of this article, I cannot imagine why anyone in their right mind, after doing a real comparison of the two candidates, would vote for Senator Obama. I admit, he presents himself well and has a good appearance, as long as he has a teleprompter to read from. So the bottom line is what do you want in the next president, appearance or substance?

Now for those of you who blame President Bush for everything, consider this: George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.

A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high.
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon.
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
4) The DOW JONES hit a record high--14,000 +
5) American's were buying new cars, taking cruises, vacations overseas, and living large!

But American's wanted 'CHANGE'!

So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes--we got 'CHANGE' all right.


1) Consumer confidence has plummeted.
2) Gasoline went over $4 a gallon and was climbing, until the stock market crashed.
3) Unemployment is up to 5.5% (a 10% increase).
4) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS and prices still dropping.
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.






Daniel Bein said...

The most experienced was monger in the White House is still the most experience war monger in the White House. McCain is a nut and a neocon. Bush had a Republican congress for a good while, and we got bigger government and war and the destruction of habeus corpus and civil liberties.

All the experience in the wold doesn't change the fact that McCain is wrong on everything that counts. He is a "spending hawk" who wants to involve us in as many wars as possible. Cut spending and fight wars all over the world? It cannot be done.

Also, this is a ridiculous statement. "George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine." The economy was not "fine" for the first six years. Anyone who makes such a claim must have been living in a cave in the Ozarks and not in the America I was living in.

Obama is not the boogey man. He's just like a Bill Clinton or an Al Gore. He's a big government democrat. At least with him we know what to expect. McCain seems to have conned people into thinking he's going to reduce spending, or that he's somehow an honorable man. I see no evidence of this. And Obama's "questionable associations" don't mean jack and are not going to influence any of his policies. They are diversions to convince us that Obama is some how a dark and mysterious character.

Daniel Bein said...

Also, to suggest that the stock market crashing and the housing bubble bursting were the fault of the newly elected democratic congress is laughable. These problems were the result of failed policies that both parties have supported whole heartedly for decades. It is dishonest to cloud this and try to blame "dem damned Democrats" for everything.