Who will (not should) be the Third Party/Independent candidates in 2008?

[Cringer]

I vote third party whenever possible. Sometimes I don't even care what party is the third party, I just want more then two legitimate choices in this country when it comes to major offices. I am looking forward to putting a sign or two in my yard that will drive all the people in my neighborhood with their Hillary signs nuts.

With Ralph Nader announcing he will run (though not connected to the Green Party yet from what I understand), people wanting Bloomberg to run as an independent, and whoever the Libertarian Party tries to throw into the mix, I wanted to start a thread for the outsiders.

I will probably still vote for Ron Paul over the next week as early voting in Texas goes on, but I don't consider him a Republican all that much. In the general election it is looking like I will vote for Nader if he is able to get on the Texas ballot. If the Libertarian candidate is able to get on in Texas then I may go that way.

Not sure if much will become of this thread, but I get a little tired of talking Democrats and Republicans.

[Vegas Vic]

The Libertarian Party and Ralph Nader are polar opposites on almost every issue, so I'm having trouble understanding how you would be open to voting for both of them.

[cartman]

I think that Nader is going to run as an Independent, and Cythina "SkyDog's favorite member of the 435" McKinney has the inside track for the Green Party nod. I know the Greens are trying to write-in Nader, but he seems to want to run unattached to a party this time.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

... Cythina "SkyDog's favorite member of the 435" McKinney has the inside track for the Green Party nod.

I thought her loss in the Green's California primary/caucus/whatever pretty much ended her shot at getting the party nomination?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I thought her loss in the Green's California primary/caucus/whatever pretty much ended her shot at getting the party nomination?

She finished 2nd to Nader, who was a draft candidate. If he doesn't accept the invite, I'm not sure how they will handle it.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

The Libertarian Party and Ralph Nader are polar opposites on almost every issue, so I'm having trouble understanding how you would be open to voting for both of them.

Funny, I went to answer this thinking it would be easy to answer. It's not as easy as I thought I guess.

When I have the choice I will vote Libertarian. If there is no Libertarian running, or just not on my local ballot, then another third party will do (within reason), or an independent. The reason I would vote for Nader in the General election would be if he was on the ballot in Texas and a Libertarian candidate is not. I won't vote for a Republican/Democrat unless I have no other choice, mainly because I would like to see a real multiple party system in this country, not a two that often look like one party system. Supporting third parties on the ballot is part of what I can do.

[Buccaneer]

Cringer, I can certainly understand where you are coming from, esp. as I have voted third-party or none-of-the-above more times than not. Part of my motivations for my libertarian writings have been to get people thinking outside of the one-dimensional red/blue spectrum. Your "protest" vote would be similar to my wanting to force gridlock in a split government, if it has to come down to that.

[Vegas Vic]

So, just to make sure I understand you correctly, the platform of the 3rd party candidate is irrelevant? Voting for the Libertarian candidate (who wants to remove as much government intervention in your life as possible) or voting for Nader (who wants the government to regulate as much as it can) is equally OK for you, as long as you don't vote for a Democrat or a Republican?

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

So, just to make sure I understand you correctly, the platform of the 3rd party candidate is irrelevant? Voting for the Libertarian candidate (who wants to remove as much government intervention in your life as possible) or voting for Nader (who wants the government to regulate as much as it can) is equally OK for you, as long as you don't vote for a Democrat or a Republican?

Simply put, yes it is OK to me. It may not make sense to you, and I have no problem if I seem off my rocker to you because of it. Though I may like what the libertarians want to do more, it does not mean I can not find reasons to support Nader and be comfortable about doing it. Part of it is what 3rd parties or independents represent to me (which also happens to be similar to what Nader said yesterday or today in an interview), that part of the problem with the the current system is the control by big business and the media. Nader is not happy with the current system, and in that I can support him. I am also sure I could find some actual issues that I agree with him on, I remember having some I agreed with him on before even though I didn't vote for him.

The guy will get some votes, maybe mine or not, I don't know yet. I hope he gets a lot either way.

On a side note, I love how much hate the media is showing him already, it's pathetic....

Nader's role? A vote waster
Arizona Republic, AZ - 1 hour ago

Nader the Egotist
U.S. News & World Report, DC - 11 hours ago

Nader Runs, Nation Ralphs
Yahoo! News - 21 hours ago

JUST LIKE JASON, NADER THE TRAITOR IS BACK
OpEdNews, PA - 5 hours ago

Ralph Nader proves his selfishness once again
Southwest News-Herald, IL - 12 hours ago

Ralph Nader, Go Home
The Simon, CA - 7 hours ago

Ralph Nader: tragedy to farce
Atlantic Online - Feb 24, 2008

Whose campaign will Nader undermine this time?
Mid Columbia Tri City Herald, WA - 11 hours ago

even Canada baby!

Ralph Nader To Spoil US Presidential Race
E Canada Now, Canada - 16 hours ago

back to the US

America's Suicide Bomber
Village Voice, NY - 15 hours ago

CNN's Schneider: Nader 'A Public Nuisance'
NewsBusters - Feb 24, 2008

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Cringer

Simply put, yes it is OK to me. It may not make sense to you, and I have no problem if I seem off my rocker to you because of it. Though I may like what the libertarians want to do more, it does not mean I can not find reasons to support Nader and be comfortable about doing it. Part of it is what 3rd parties or independents represent to me (which also happens to be similar to what Nader said yesterday or today in an interview), that part of the problem with the the current system is the control by big business and the media. Nader is not happy with the current system, and in that I can support him. I am also sure I could find some actual issues that I agree with him on, I remember having some I agreed with him on before even though I didn't vote for him.

I appreciate the response, and I really wasn't trying to criticize your decision. I just find it fascinating that voting for any available 3rd party candidate on the ballot would trump voting for a Democrat or Republican who might be much closer to your political views. Ralph Nader is about one notch removed from Communism, and he's the complete opposite of a Libertarian, which seems to be your preferred party.

[Greyroofoo]

Nader's got my vote so far

[Cringer]

Nader announces his running mate. Also says he is not running as a Green.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Ralph Nader, who announced an independent bid for the White House earlier this week, named Matt Gonzalez, the former president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, his running mate today.

Gonzalez, Nader said, is "unwavering in his principles and committed to his politics with clear eloquence and humane logic."

"He's demonstrated - through his legal, civic, and political career - his steadfast commitment to the values and directions that have characterized my work and hopes for our country and its role in the world," Nader added

Gonzalez served on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors until 2005 and also ran for mayor against current mayor Gavin Newsom in 2003, losing 53 to 47 percent.

He said, "I have no illusions about what is happening here today. I understand what stands before us. But let me also say, I have never run in a political contest with the idea that it couldn't be won."

"There are those that are going to say that what we doing is going to take votes from other candidates," Gonzalez added. "There is nothing that we can do that can force anybody to vote for us but we very much want the opposite not to be true. That anybody who wants to vote for us should not be forced to vote for other candidates."

Gonzalez began his remarks by saying "it's not lost on me that I am not a familiar face to the Washington press corps" before launching to into an introduction of his background and accomplishments. He noted that after three years on the San Franciso Board of Supervisors he was nominated for the board's presidency, which he maintained was "a testament to my integrity and ability to work with politicians of differing political ideas."

Prior to 2000, Gonzalez worked as a deputy public defender, an experience which he says greatly shaped his political policies.

He also outlined three "three broad areas" Nader's candidacy will focus on: election reform, poverty, and the war in Iraq. Nader and Gonzalez previously worked on an anti-war tour in 2005.

Today, Gonzalez went after John McCain and Barack Obama on Iraq, saying McCain "has, in effect, been calling for perpetual war, permanaent occupation and while we appreciate his candor, Mr. Nader and I simply do not agree that that is the appropraite policy for the region." He also argued against Obama's unwillingness to commit to withdraw all U.S. troops by 2013.

On their '08 rivals, both men had sharp words. Gonzalez argued, "any progressive in the United States can't help but have some sense of positive feeling when they see an African American or a woman" successful in a presidential race. But he argued that these candidates' progressive rhetoric does not match their records,

Nader said of both Democratic candidates, "they are talking very populist.

"When you are desperate and about to lose your job you do your best work," Nader said in a veiled reference to Hillary Clinton.

Nader also made it official that "we are not going to seek the Green Party nomination" which "has four announced candidates -- very articulate candidates." Instead, it's likely they will run as independents and not affiliated officially with any currently existing third-party.

[Galaxy]

Eh....A San Francisco guy? I don't have too a good feeling about that.

[Cringer]

Not too sure this will help Mike Gravel much....

[path12]

So Bob Barr has announced he is running as a Libertarian. Thoughts from you who consider yourselves Libertarians?

[BishopMVP]

That Mike Gravel clip is the greatest use of the internet by a politician I have ever seen.

[Buccaneer]

Bob Barr is probably not the right person since his past includes many hard right positions. However, I fully respect those that can change their minds to a better position. I like his voice against the Patriot Act but he comes across as a one-trick ACLU warrior, particularly as he has sponsored way too much instrusive federal government legislations. His notoriety seems to come from his very vocal oppositions, almost as if he likes to hear himself talk.

Libertarianism is a mindset and a way of life, not a platform to use out of spite.

[ISiddiqui]

I'd vote for Bob Barr... in fact I'm seriously considering it.

He's come a long way from his Republican Congressmen days... especially his work with the ACLU and for civil liberties.

And I don't think he's using it out of spite... however, I do think he's a more moderate Libertarian than Browne (and yes, they can exist... even though I'm sure you don't agree ).

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm not exactly sure a guy who comes across as downright schizophrenic to those of us who've been watching him from pretty close proximity for a pretty good while now is the face you really want to put on a party.

But hey, it's your party, do what you want. Just sayin' ...

[Buccaneer]

Which is why I have not and still do not prescribe to a political party, Libertarian or otherwise. I believe one can more effective being libertarian-minded (moderate or conservative type, either one) within the establish parties, much like what (D) Proxmire used to do and what (R) Paul is trying to do now.

As far as voting, this is probably the first presidential election since I started voting in 1978 that I will actually like both candidates, to some extent. But that does not rule out voting for Barr or some other 3rd party because I do want to see gridlock and slowing down the growth and powers of the federal government.

[JPhillips]

I have a family friend that used to be a representative. He said the only guy he was scared of in D.C. was Barr. Apparently his tantrums and threats were legendary.