Hillary for President??

[Elvi]

How can you have equal respect for everyone when you declare that what they are doing is a mortal sin?
He is anti birth control, anti abortion, anti homosexual and goodness knows what else and I found that out by only a very quick 'google', so I dread to think what else I could find.

And look.....Apple has done my work for me, so I don't need to find you any of the information myself...

*orders extra gold plating for apple and two more crew*

[Sugarman (hal)]

Huckabee! Screaming...

Always look at who supports a candidate... Money has strings. The man camped with BIG TIME bible thumping self-righteous so deep, you can't find his tent for the forest of them.
;D

[Sakujo]

Doing a fact check at Ontheissues.org as we speak, and it seems that Huckabee has recently come to a stronger position on abortion, having originally said it was a right by law, and now saying eh wants an amendment that life begins at conception, ad saying he'd de-fund Planned parenthood. So you're right on that one. He thus also opposes stem cell research. Ugh, I suddenly feel like I'm living in some weird version of the future.

Huckabee on Don't Ask Don't Tell & Homosexuality: "HUCKABEE: It's already covered by the Uniform Code of Military Conduct. I think that's what Congressman Paul was saying. It's about conduct, it's not about attitude. You don't punish people for their attitudes. You punish them if their behavior creates a problem."

"Q: Should gay couples be allowed to adopt children?
A: Unfortunately, so much of this argument has been framed about what the same-sex couple wants. But the real question needs to be child-focused, not couple-focused. And that's true whether the couple is same-sex or whether they're heterosexual. In our state, as in most, the criteria for adoption is always what's in the best interest of the child.

Q: So is it in the best interest of the child to have gay parents?
A: I'm not sure that we have a positive answer to that. And until we absolutely could say it, then I'm always hesitant to change those institutions.

Q: Do you believe that you're born gay or you choose to be gay?
A: I don't honestly know. But the point is, people are who they want to be, and we should respect them for that. But when they want to change the institutions that've governed our society for all the years of recorded human history, then that's a serious change of culture that we don't just make readily or hurriedly. "

"Q: You said this to the Des Moines Register: "Let's face it. In our lifetimes, we've seen our country go from 'Leave it to Beaver' to 'Beavis and Butt-head,' from Barney Fife to Barney Frank." Why include Barney Frank, a gay congressman, in that reference?
A: It was a matter of a rhetorical device to talk about the different cultural shift that we have, and it wasn't any particular attempt to be derisive of him. But there has been a huge cultural shift in this country.

Q: Some would suggest by including Barney Frank in that reference you are tearing a gay man down. You're against gay marriage, you're against gay civil unions. Do you have a problem with gay people?
A: No. I have a problem with changing institutions that have served us. Before we change the definition of marriage to mean something different, I think our real focus ought to be on trying to strengthen heterosexual marriages because half of them are ending in divorce. "

So, unfortunately, he does seem to be against civil unions, though his wording is consistent with his ideas about respect for individuals.

(And from that, to answer the question about respect/equality without equal stance in the law/society, I wasn't claiming that he actually has absolute equality in mind, merely that his ideas about respect, though flawed, are present in a genuine sense.)

Yet another thing I don't like about Huckabee "Tax-credited programs for Christian schooling. (Sep 2007)"

Scariest thing he's uttered would probably be

"Q: When you ran for the Senate back in 1992, you called for quarantining AIDS patients. Do you stand by that now?

A: I didn't say that we should quarantine. I said it was the first time in public health protocols that when we had an infectious disease & we didn't really know just how extensive it could be, that we didn't isolate the carrier. Now, the headlines started saying that I called for quarantines, which I did not. I had simply made the point that in the late '80s, when we didn't know as much as we do now about AIDS, we were acting more out of political correctness than we were about the normal public health protocols that we would have acted--as we have recently, for example, with avian flu--I spent months as a governor dealing with a pandemic plan that we were looking at which called for isolating carriers if they contracted that disease. I'm not going to recant. Would I say it a little differently today? Sure, in light of 15 years of additional knowledge, I would.
Source: Fox News Sunday: 2007 "Choosing the President" interviews Dec 9, 2007"

Sadly, he also supports teacher-led prayer in schools.

So, yes, there are some areas where Huckabee is insanely wrong, it seems.

-sigh-

Disappointing, considering what I had seen of him in the past. It seems the past three months have been especially revealing.



Edit: As for Hillary, I say she's insane because of the temperament I've seen from her, combined with her policies on increasing incarceration,expanding hate crimes & affirmative action with words that sound like she wouldn't be keeping it under control, her ideas about reducing testing for teachers, expanding schooling to an automatic right through to college, her pressing of global warming issues into federal programs, her push-shove relationship with China, her flip on trade, and her back and forth flipping on issues of immigration. Hillary just doesn't seem to have things together at all.

That said, Huckabee seems to have the common sense, whereas Hillary seems better for social reform. It's too bad they aren't mixed into one person.

[VandalSavage]

On the Matter of Gay Rights and the Candidates in Question:

The best source of information on the candidate's positions on gay rights, so far as the Democrats are concerned, is the GLBT Debates held back in late summer.  The candidates may sound the same to the casual listener, but this the core of each of their positions, synopsized:

Hillary Clinton:  Hillary said little on the reform of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", save to express rhetorical sympathy for those afflicted by it.  She said she stood for Hate Crimes legislation.  She then said, most saliently in my opinion, that the issue of gay marriage should be left to the states.

As a supporter of equal marriage rights, I find this reprehensible. "Left to the states" is what we have now, with some 28 states amending their Constitutions to ban gay marriage.  In my mind, it is tantamount to a 14th Amendment violation.

Barack Obama:  Obama was not asked about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."  He does favor Hate Crimes legislation.  His position on gay marriage is that the federal government should institute one kind of marriage benefit - essentially a "civil union" for all - and issue it to any couple, gay or straight.  He intended this, he says, to take "belief" and "principle" out of the hands of government; the same benefits would be conferred on any couple, and they could call it "marriage" or "hand-fasting" or "Obamabonding" or whatever.

As a support of equal marriage rights and free speech, I was very much in favor of this position.  I don't think the government should have as little authority over dictating the terminology of our beliefs as possible.

Mike Huckabee:  Huckabee believes homosexual behavior is a sin.  Like the book on which he bases his beliefs, it is simply a choice made by degenerates.  He notes this in a December interview with MSNBC:

""Well I believe it would be — just like lying is sinful and stealing is sinful. There are a lot of things that are sinful. It doesn't mean that a person is a horrible person. It means that they engage in behavior that is outside the norms of those boundaries of our traditional view of what's right and what's wrong. So, I think that anybody who has, maybe a traditional worldview of sexuality would classify that as an unusual behavior that is not traditional and that would be outside those bounds."

Huckabee is opposed to same-sex marriage, going so far as to outlaw it in his state.  He also opposes the usual Republican half-measure of civil unions.  He is in favor of banning gay couples from adopting.

In sum, this is not six of one and half dozen of the other.  Hillary is for a sort of homosexual "Jim Crow".  Obama is in favor of equal rights for all, in essence "lowering" marriage to a civil union.  Huckabee is in favor of bans, some of which even block existing social rights.

[Apple of Eris]

And look.....Apple has done my work for me, so I don't need to find you any of the information myself...

*orders extra gold plating for apple and two more crew*

You are such a sweetie Elvi, you know I'm a sucker for gold :)

[National Acrobat]

Actually, Our laws (god bless america) have no term limits for Vice presidents... or limitations, a former President can run for VP, As it is an office they have never had, and with no term limits. :) Course someone else would have to nominate him for VP after Hillary was out of Office. But he can run for VP. :)

Bill cannot be VP because he has run for President, and won election twice, which is forbidden by the consitution. The Two (POTUS and VP) are not mutually exclusive. You can't run for either office if you have already been elected twice as president.

She can't win, and quite frankly a lot of my democratic friends don't think Obama can win a general election either.

[Apple of Eris]

She can't win?

Please expand upon your opinion that she can not win a general election.

[Cherri Tart]

if Huckabee wins, we are moving to Canada - that's not just an idle threat, btw.  i'm tired of being thought of as a third class citizen, a sinner, an evil person, and having my rights stomped upon.  If Mr Huckabee wins, i may lose the right to have an abortion, never gain the right to marry whom I choose, and not allowed to use Birth control - btw, condoms are for more then BC - they are also used to prevent the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, so... in a nutshell, according to Mr Huckabee:

I will have to dump my girl friend, get married to a virgin, have 10 babies (if i survive the first one, that is), and be happy about it.  Oh, and I'd never get to see my best friend again, cause he'd be living in a concentration camp for those with AIDS.  That's kind of my take on it.  Yes, this i am being reactionary, but really, i am SO sick of the government getting into my life - they can't even manage the country decently, so how is it i should trust them to manage my life?   Personally, i'm voting Kusinic! 

Btw, anyone who says that Obama doesn't have enough experinence should remember that Abraham Lincoln had no more experience then Obama - it's not about experience - a good leader knows he needs to gather experienced people around her/him and use them - not everyone knows everything, but if you can use what someone else knows, then you will do a good job.

And to all the people making jokes about Hillary being kept away from the button for the nuclear missles 3 days a month?  *holds up a sinlge finger*  Not that that applies to anyone here, but I hear it often enough and i'm kind of sick of it.  The difference between men and women?  Women are irrational ONLY 3 days a month! *grins*  There, take that!

[National Acrobat]

She can't win?

Please expand upon your opinion that she can not win a general election.

As my conservative friends tell me, she is a terribly polarizing figure whom the right despises due to her association with Bill and his regime. Apparently the Republicans will mobilize more voters to get out to vote should she actually get the nomination. I tend to agree with this. I have yet to meet anyone with a moderate opinion of her. Everyone I know either loves her or hates her with no middle ground whatsoever, and unfortunately the media doesn't like her either, which won't help if she gets the nomination. The media is already doing what it can to derail her campaign. NBC has already admitted it's bias towards Obama, as admitted by Brian Williams.

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/television/journo_love_for_obama_74502.asp

I think those two factors alone don't help her in a huge way.

[Celestial Goblin]

I have the most sympathy for Obama and Kucinich myself, though I'm just a foreigner so it won't matter.
But I gotta agree that it's really patethic when people take shots at the fact Hillary is a woman.

And yeah, Huckabee might have tact and intelligence, but his beliefs are completely 'out there'. I wouldn't be suprised if all his diplomatic and 'respectful' words were the result of his campaign strategists telling him not to alienate too many moderate people.

By the way, National Acrobat, one thing you said made me curious...
What groups will Republicans mobilize if Hillary wins the nomination that they can't or won't mobilize against other democratic candidates? Is there a significant group of people not opposed to democrats in whole but opposed to Clintons?

[National Acrobat]

I have the most sympathy for Obama and Kucinich myself, though I'm just a foreigner so it won't matter.
But I gotta agree that it's really patethic when people take shots at the fact Hillary is a woman.

And yeah, Huckabee might have tact and intelligence, but his beliefs are completely 'out there'. I wouldn't be suprised if all his diplomatic and 'respectful' words were the result of his campaign strategists telling him not to alienate too many moderate people.

By the way, National Acrobat, one thing you said made me curious...
What groups will Republicans mobilize if Hillary wins the nomination that they can't or won't mobilize against other democratic candidates? Is there a significant group of people not opposed to democrats in whole but opposed to Clintons?

I believe that there are just some republicans that are more ambivalent, given the republican candidates that are running for the nomination. It's been admitted by many in the GOP that this year's bunch of potential nominees aren't 'conservative' enough (with the exception of Huckabee who won't get the nomination) to the point where the potential for many republicans to stay home on election day exists. One thing above all others will get them to go out and vote, and that is Hillary. I've heard it too many times from people I know who are republicans, and in the press. My boss is a conservative republican, and even he is considering not voting because there isn't a decent, across the board conservative candidate for him, but if Hillary gets the nomination he's going to vote for what he calls the 'lesser of two evils'.

[Sianna]

What groups will Republicans mobilize if Hillary wins the nomination that they can't or won't mobilize against other democratic candidates?

I am a Republican who - so far - plans to vote for Obama. I would work my ass off to campaign against Hillary though.

I think the group of Republicans your asking about are any that are ready for new ideas and tired of the same old rhetoric. Above all else, I am impressed with sincere and reasonable people. So far Obama is that guy, even if he is a Democrat.

[VandalSavage]

She can't win?

Please expand upon your opinion that she can not win a general election

I believe that there are just some republicans that are more ambivalent, given the republican candidates that are running for the nomination. It's been admitted by many in the GOP that this year's bunch of potential nominees aren't 'conservative' enough (with the exception of Huckabee who won't get the nomination) to the point where the potential for many republicans to stay home on election day exists. One thing above all others will get them to go out and vote, and that is Hillary. I've heard it too many times from people I know who are republicans, and in the press. My boss is a conservative republican, and even he is considering not voting because there isn't a decent, across the board conservative candidate for him, but if Hillary gets the nomination he's going to vote for what he calls the 'lesser of two evils'.

As is manifest by the assortment of candidates in the GOP, the Right is no longer the bloc that Reagan mobilized, Gingrich hammered into shape and Rove fueled with pure vitriol.  It is severely fractured - in policy, attitude and organization.

Just look at the last two races, or the polls state-by-state: McCain, the dowdy old battleship, draws on the dependable post-industrial stock of New Hampshire.  Huckabee gets the starry-eyed Iowan Evangelicals of the Bible Belt hard.  Given this extreme stratification of GOP character, born of the fracture caused when Dubya fell and his umbrella cracked, the Right can hardly hope for a candidate all Conservatives will back.  Thompson might draw the latter-day Reaganites of Tuscon, AZ, but not Rudy's metropolitan, ultra-macho maniacs down in Miami, FL.  Nobody gets the whole bag of beans yet.

But then, nobody on the Right likes Hillary.  Point in fact, they hate Hillary.  Even some Independents loathe her and some Democrats, like myself, have looked close enough to find her downright repulsive.  In sum, she would galvanize the Right.  As it is, the GOP cannot find anyone that their overall constituency might vote for.  But by The Coming Apocalypse Of Socialized Medicine, they all know who they will vote against.

National Polls bear this out.  It's like a logic test from First Grade, but where the solution equals my tears:

Among Democrats, Hillary is prefered over Obama.  But match Hillary against any GOP candidate, and she loses by a substantial margin.  And match Obama against any GOP candidate, and he wins by a substantial margin.

I am not saying it is a sure thing that Hillary "cannot" win.  I am saying that there is a very good chance she will not.  And if there is any miracle to be brought about by a Clinton candidacy, it is that after eight years of Bush in the White House and six of DeLay in Congress, we could end up with another four years of Republican Presidency.

[Elven Sex Goddess]

I am a Republican who - so far - plans to vote for Obama. I would work my ass off to campaign against Hillary though.

I think the group of Republicans your asking about are any that are ready for new ideas and tired of the same old rhetoric. Above all else, I am impressed with sincere and reasonable people. So far Obama is that guy, even if he is a Democrat.

I would guess your not a conservative Republican if supporting Barack Obama.   I would have thought that if wanted someone like Barack Obama, especially in the area of social issues.  That you would have picked John McCain.  Especially since he is strong conservative in economics.   The misleading thing on John is not that he was against tax cuts of Bush.  But that he favored a tax cuts with spending cuts.   It though was his liberal polices in social issues.  That have the party base, or party extreme luke warm towards him.   However, if he wins South Carolina, and Michigan.   That base will wrap around him.  For they fear Barack and/or Hillary in the general election.   

Speaking of republican groups, I see on FOX Hannity and Colmes,  that Huckabee is getting swift boated now.   I guess the party faithful are not in his corner. 

Finally it is curious a declared republican declaring for Democrat that is no where near moderate, leans heavily liberal.  Its like jumping on the home teams bandwagon when they have a winning season. 

[Sianna]

I claimed to be a Republican. That's how I am registered, that is how i generally vote. I really don't go much for labels. I am a reasonable and sincere American. I'll vote for someone who is reasonable and sincere.

You can stop reading here if that explains my answer. If you want to know more about what makes me feel as I do, read on.

Having worked with a group of veterans and former POWs who dedicated their hearts, time and personal wealth to present truths that the media consistently got wrong, I resent the use of the term swift boating. If you are going to use it so frequently you should at least be aware what those men stood for. If you believe them or not, before you malign their character - do some homework. The Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth are the most sincere group of people I have ever had the honor of knowing. Some people think my passion for their cause makes me a conservative. In fact I am just an American who did some research and was outraged that their story wasn't being told.

I know this is a can of worms and will take us miles from the intent of this thread. In fact the only thing it has to do with Hillary is that she has a habit of throwing that catch phrase around as much as you do. If you want to debate the SBVT we should do so on another thread. Usually I find it is a discussion people would rather not have.

The reason I don't support John McCain lies within my researching of John Kerry's service, antiwar activities and dealings with North Vietnam. As well as other more recent concerns, like his trampling of free speech with campaign finance reform.  On immigration I disagreed with McCain and the Round Them Up and Deport Them crowd. I don't find it a reasonable approach.

My beliefs are generally (aggressive) conservative on defense and taxes with odd blend of libertarian-liberal on social issues, except for abortion which would swing me back to conservative - however I do not believe it is the presidents job to decide that issue by appointing judges who will legislate rather than interpret law.

I am registered as a Republican. If the Republican party had produced a candidate that I thought was sincere /and/ reasonable, I would be voting for them. They have not yet in my opinion. I was prepared to love Guliani but so far, I am afraid he would be recklessly aggressive in an area where nuanced diplomacy is called for. Huckabee is sincere, just unreasonable - in my opinion. Romney - affectionately known as The Hair - reasonable but as sincere as a Ken doll. He is the Republican version of Edwards. I really liked Tommy Thompson. The press however didn't give him the time of day. They did not even mention that he dropped out of the race. Did anyone notice he was gone?

On the Democrat side; While I disagreed with Biden on some issues, I found him to be very sincere, plain spoken and his ideas were reasonable, if not my personal favorites. He really gets it right when it comes to foreign policy.  Edwards - see Romney.

That leaves Clinton and Obama; We'll do Clinton first. I find her less sincere than Edwards and Romney combined. I find she has less conviction than Kerry. She even was for the war before she was against it. I find her opportunistic and power hungry. I think she would be divisive in a time that we need to be united more than ever before.

Which brings us to Obama - I find him sincere and reasonable. I also find that he is charismatic and able to communicate without being condescending or shrill. In short, I think he could unite. I am not fond of all of his ideas, though I could live with them. Some of his ideas are dead-on right. Like the gay marriage issue. The state should not be marrying anyone. The state should provide civil unions to everyone and churches provide marriages to whomever their doctrine allows. Simple, fair and constitutional.

[RubySlippers]

I'm a member of the Libertarian Party if Ron Paul fails to make the Republican Ticket I'll support our nominee when selected for President. Why should I vote for either party they violated the Consitution for years, have no interest in keeping us out of foreign entanglements that are none of our business and support one way or another an American NANNY STATE. Either by the government getting larger such as the Department of Homeland (In)security or with Democratic social programs. I see supporting either party as a waste of my vote unless they come up with someone with Libertarian leanings I'm not for sale and will not settle for the lesser of two evils when both offend me, unless Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination he will have my respect.

[Apple of Eris]

Well since there aren't any really good free-market-anarcho-socialist candidates, I generally vote Democratic. AFter some reserach on positions I'm a little more closely aligned towards Obama, but I feel a little more positive about Hillary. I do think experience in Washington helps, see the first Health care plan the clintons tried to push through, it got torn apart because of their lack of experience. Plus honestly, I think its time to get some estrogen into the white house and air that thing out.

Although I'd be happy with either Clinton or 'Bama as neither is a rich white male.

[RubySlippers]

Well then vote for a minor party candidate, why would you sell your honor for a candidate you don't feel at 100% good about. Let me ask the people here a simple question:

Are you happy with the two parties in power that is the President, Congress and local and state offices and that they are doing what you want them to do for you and the nation?

If not then why vote for any of them if we could get current the non-voters that can vote to elect other parties into Congress and state and local offices guess what we rebelled in a way that will kill the system far better than a gun can. A vote is power, when you use your vote its putting a gun proverbially to the government and saying this is how I want you to run things. This is my honor and my right and you do as I wish.

Your person may not get in or even have much of a voice at first but a 98% voter turnout would terrify the powers in charge and the special interest, and enough seats would change hands to put a dent in their monopoly. For they need votes over money in the end and voters should be intelligent, informed and vote for those they feel will do the best job. Not just settle.

[Sakujo]

This is why everyone should take an election off and vote for a write-in candidate. :D

[Elven Sex Goddess]

Having worked with a group of veterans and former POWs who dedicated their hearts, time and personal wealth to present truths that the media consistently got wrong, I resent the use of the term swift boating. If you are going to use it so frequently you should at least be aware what those men stood for. If you believe them or not, before you malign their character - do some homework. The Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth are the most sincere group of people I have ever had the honor of knowing. Some people think my passion for their cause makes me a conservative. In fact I am just an American who did some research and was outraged that their story wasn't being told.

You know what really gets me is  that republicans seem to think they corner the market on patriotism and honor.    You see my claim to being around vets  and servicemen.  Is the fact I was born in an Air Force hospital.  Grew up around veterans and servicemen.   Yet that really holds jack crap to anything.   Yet neither does having been around a group, regardless of who or what.  But then the point is that even another group the group that was on the mission with John Kerry, the guys with him.  They decried the so called patriotic veteran group that put up the swift boat ads.     

Yet it be a mute point to argue, your absolutely correct on that.  Would not want any part of it.  Can't win an argument when the other enters into it already ingrained they are the righteous.   Plus I realize full well I am also just an American who can do research and pull up just easily discrediting the swift boat attacks.  Just depends what ideology group you want.   An what answer your looking for.  As finally with your reasoning, I guess retired general Wesley Clark who supports Clinton, is not a patriot either or sincere and honorable with your reasoning.   

[Sianna]

You know what really gets me is  that republicans seem to think they corner the market on patriotism and honor.

I am not sure how you come to that conclusion from my remarks. I didn't mention either patriotism or honor. You questioned my Republicanism. Am I now too Republican because I worked for the SBVT?

You see my claim to being around vets  and servicemen.  Is the fact I was born in an Air Force hospital.  Grew up around veterans and servicemen.   Yet that really holds jack crap to anything.

I don't think how much military background you have has anything to do with how informed you are on a political issue. I said that I would debate SBVT with you on another thread if you wanted, this isn't the place to do it though.

Yet it be a mute point to argue, your absolutely correct on that.  Would not want any part of it.

That is usually the case.

Can't win an argument when the other enters into it already ingrained they are the righteous.

It isn't about winning or losing an argument is it? Shouldn't it be about uncovering the facts?

Plus I realize full well I am also just an American who can do research and pull up just easily discrediting the swift boat attacks.

Did you research? I did, and will be happy to provide you with links to relevant information.

Just depends what ideology group you want.

No, not really. Somethings are subjective. Some things just are what they are. You would have to be willing to look though.

As finally with your reasoning, I guess retired general Wesley Clark who supports Clinton, is not a patriot either or sincere and honorable with your reasoning.   

I really have no idea what that comment, or Wesley Clark have to do with my reasoning.

[Elven Sex Goddess]

What does the Wesly Clark have to do with it.  I will tell you what it has to do with it.  The same thing that John Kerry a patriot American and hero.  Regardless of what his ideology is, be smeared by nothing more then a group with a political agenda.   That was to ensure at all costs a liberal did not get into the white house.  Regardless they backed a man that did not even serve out his national guard duty.   It makes me sick to see under the pretense of being a patriotic American.  That such is done.  And rest assure, groups like SBVT if had someone the hard core republican conservative base could rally around.  John McCain also a war hero and former pow would come under attack. 

Yet it is a mute point and this will be my last response.  The reference to swift boating, is how the fox news show put it when they said it.  It was the only reason for referencing the swift boating to begin with. 

When all I was curious as to why you had decided to cast your vote with Barack Obama.  Especially when one declares themself one way or the other.   It be like a democrat who is liberal.  Suddenly saying they seen the light and is voting for Mike Huckabee.  Especially since his take on issues does not go with them. 

Any whys glad you have come to a decision and have selected Barack.

[Sianna]

If you want to discuss this any further open a Kerry or SBVT thread please. I won't continue to engage in a conversation that declares arguing is pointless while continuing to try and bolster it's case. I will debate if you want to, provide research material if desired and will be glad to explain again how I arrived at my conclusions, but in an appropriate forum.

[Apple of Eris]

Well then vote for a minor party candidate, why would you sell your honor for a candidate you don't feel at 100% good about. Let me ask the people here a simple question:

I've yet to find the minor party that has the same views as myself. I'm not libertarian, I support government social programs, I'm not a full on socialist, because I like a free market, I'm not really a green even though I do like environmentally friendly legislation. The best fit I have is either Democrat or move to like canada or some other country that has multiple parties with proportionate representation.

[VandalSavage]

I worked on the 'Shadow Convention' in 2000 - an organization with, actually, some rather high-profile people involved that was intended to be an organization of all those 'minor parties' and disenfranchised voters.  This was, for me and many involved, a compelling education in the practicalities of politics.

The first thing I learned, addresses your question, Ruby, about organizing the current population of non-voters:  They are exceedingly difficult to organize.  One of the reasons that the two existing parties do so well is sheer logistic strength - they have thousands upon thousands of people devoted to the task of locating their party members, mobilizing them and framing the issues.  By contrast, even a well-established party like the Green Party lacks these assets.  Often they do not have large voter lists, do not know how to make them, do not know who to reach, or how to frame the issues to reach them, or how to frame the issues once people are on the lists to mobilize them, and so on.

But let us say that those parties actually do come together in one place, with the common goal of making their voices heard by the establishment, as 'The Shadow Convention' did.  What is the trouble then?

The trouble is that no one could bloody agree on what the whole group should stand for.  They were, by definition, individually identified, and so all believed different things.  By contrast, groups that vote a certain way due to party allegiance have real political coherence and real power.  To extend your metaphor about guns, the existing parties line up like the British in the Zulu war, aim and fire as one.  Getting together "non-voters" or individuals lead to a lot of firing in wild directions - even at one another.

So, more than disaffection and desperation, or the promise of a big tent, parties need three A's: Ambition, Agenda and Activity.  Why people don't vote for third parties is because they believe nobody else will, and the third party will lose, and they are right, because no one in those parties has worked tirelessly to get thousands upon thousands working tirelessly for their cause.


But the most important lesson I took from that year was this:  Third parties do matter.  They can cost a party an election.

Nader had 97,000+ votes in Florida.  That would have cleared Gore the state, easily.  Gore would have been in charge, and who's to say what would have happened?  We know a few things with certainty:

We wouldn't have the Global Gag Rule now.  We would not have had Don "Lighter Is Better" Rumsfeld undermanning any wars.  We would not have had a Conservative Supreme Court installed for the next generation.  Or the energy policy we do.  Or the stain Alberto Gonzales left on the Attorney General's office. 

So, yes, third parties do matter.  They arguably won the election for Clinton in '92, and for Bush in '00, by convincing disenfranchised and fussy people that it did not matter who you vote for, you get the same crap no matter who is in the White House - enough such people that they get the person diametrically opposed to their concerns elected.