Most people need a few minutes to recover after traumatic accidents, but
"Who do you think will be the next president?" she asked.
"Obama," I said.
"Do you think McCain has a chance?" she asked.
"Who are you going to vote for?" she asked.
"Well, I'm afraid you're wasting your vote."
There were police officers milling around, the ambulance had its lights on, and the primary topic was THE BOB BARR BUMPERSTICKER. I didn't know why Libertarians are that much of a distraction. I've had two people in the last two months stop me in parking lots to ask who I would vote for if a Libertarian wasn't running. When I tell them, they ask why I'm wasting my vote on a 3rd party candidate.
My friend Dr Liz at Zbeth's journal recently emailed me about Bob Barr, stating that she couldn't believe I was wasting my vote on a 3rd party candidate.
As stated earlier in these pages, I prefer to use the term "2nd party", now that warm fuzzy bipartisanship is seen as a good thing.
(By the way, did anyone else notice the word "partisan" suddenly being used as a smear after the Democratic faction lost control of the House in 1994? Up until then, partisanship had been standard operating procedure. Oh well.)
Please let me explain why a vote for Bob Barr, or any other 2nd party candidate, is not a "waste" of a vote.
1. John McCain is going to lose. Unless someone discovers Osama bin Laden underneath Saddam's palace with a stash of WMD's and some letters from Obama encouraging him to stay out of sight until Christmas, John McCain is going to lose. But millions of people are going to vote for him. Granted, this doesn't mean Barr has a hope in Hades, but is a vote for McCain "wasted"?
2. Barack Obama is going to lose Texas. Unless John McCain is discovered to be a University of Oklahoma alumni with a Washington Redskins bumpersticker on his Volvo (donated by OPEC), Barack Obama is going to lose Texas. But millions of Texans are going to vote for Obama, and because of our goofy electoral college system, those millions of votes won't help Obama win a single state. Winning states is what counts. Granted, two wrongs don't make a right, but if a Texan votes for Obama, is that vote "wasted"?
3. Thousands of BiPartisan Party (R,D) candidates will be defeated on November 4th. This is not a tragedy for one side or the other, since there is very little difference between the two factions. But if the Mommy Faction (D) wins more elections that the Daddy Faction (R) does that mean that all Daddy votes were wasted?
4. McCain has blathered on an on about how he has a proven record of "reaching across the aisle" to the other side. There are 75-year old Baptist ushers who haven't reached across as many aisles as John McCain. Why does he keep emphasizing this ability, and why does he seem to claim that there's no difference between himself and a Democrat? Because there's very little difference between McCain and the Democrats.
5. Obama does the same thing. And the Republican faction fears him because of it. Karl Rove is claiming that Obama hasn't truly reached across party lines. Yeah, Karl, your guy McCain is the only one who can genuinely compromise his convictions.... We understand now.
6. By working together as a team, reaching across the aisle, and lots of other kissy-kissy make-nice techniques, the BiPartisans (R,D,) have gotten us 10.3 trillion dollars in debt. They did this by working together as a team.
"Why refuse to compromise when there's spending to be done?" appears to be the slogan.
If you're an American citizen, your share of this debt is $33,000.00
According to Reason magazine, if the government had to follow the same accounting rules as a corporation, each household's share of the national debt would be $500,000.00 (It's something to do with Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare entitlements.) They're going try to get out of this hole by printing money. Look for that to be the big Ron Paul issue in the 2010 elections.
7. When the autopsy is finally done on our current financial mess (the historian who will write the definitive account is probably still crawling around in diapers), I'm betting that the blame will be placed at the feet of.... The Republicrats. People really do want a change of methodology. The Obama faction's pollsters have obviously done the market research on this topic, if all the Change signs at his rallies are any indication.
8. But imagine a debate between someone who liked McDonald's, and someone who really, really liked McDonald's. Wouldn't be very interesting, would it?
How about a debate between Tweedledee and Tweedledum? Ditto.
Imagine a debate about a situation where a nation is about to go bankrupt.
Imagine that the debate was limited to speakers whose factions caused the problem, and no outsiders were allowed to participate.
Oh, you don't have to imagine that? You've watched some of those debates?
Why do you think they don't want a 2nd voice added to the debate?
Is it possible that having a real choice presented to the voters might possibly lead to Change? Loss of power by the BiPartisans?
Well, we can't have that, can we..... No, let's listen to Obama and McCain debate whether the problem should be attacked with a scalpel or a hatchet. Instead of a nuclear warhead.
9. Therefore, if you want change, you have to send a signal. As long as you continue voting for The Greater Of Two Lessers, the BiPartisans will never, ever get the message that they need to change their ways. If you have genuine concerns about the mammoth size of our government, erosion of our basic rights, or our ridiculous levels of debt, there's only one real way to waste your vote, and that's by voting for one of the BiPartisans.
Go Bob Barr ! ! !