As I look at the array of available candidates left in the smoking ruins of the 2008 presidential primaries, several things occur to me. First, I understand the Left being jerked to the left by the MoveOn.org and George Soros crowd. I really do. It makes sense. The socialists have taken control of the liberal movement.
But what the hell is jerking MY party to the left?
Why is it that there is not a single candidate that represents anything even close to what I believe?
Where was I when Reaganism died?
With "Bye, Bye Miss American Pie" playing softly in my head (now with new meaning -- think about it), I return to the question I have been struggling with since Fred Thompson left the race: who do I support now?
Given that Huckabee and Giuliani seem to be lost causes (not that I could support either one, anyway), and given that I do not consider doing nothing a viable option, I am left with seven choices.
I could support Mitt Romney, the man that went to Michigan and made promises no one could possibly keep in order to woo Detroit voters. The man whose campaign spread a lie in order to suppress support of Thompson during the crucial Iowa caucus. The man that has flip-flopped on at least 15 issues, including my beloved Second Amendment.
I could support John McCain, war hero and experienced Senator. Of course, Ann Coulter properly points out that McCain's "Straight Talk Express" takes a very crooked path as he "enthusiastically (promotes) amnesty for illegal aliens, Social Security credit for illegal aliens, criminal trials for terrorists, stem-cell research on human embryos, crackpot global warming legislation and free speech-crushing campaign-finance laws." Not to mention his repeated opposition to the Bush tax cuts, waterboarding terrorists and drilling in the ANWR. And Ann completely left out McCain's poor record on gun rights and that he is a danger to the Second Amendment.
I believe Mitt will tell voters anything they want to hear, and will take his own liberal path when elected. With McCain, at least I know what I'm getting. The trouble is, apart from the continued prosecution of the War on Islamofascism, I don't like much of it.
I could support Ron Paul, a man who absolutely will not prosecute the War on Islamofascism. So no, I won't vote for him. Besides, as the Club for Growth said, the man is a purist to a fault (literally).
And so I come to choices 4 through 6: Hillary, Edwards or Obama. That's right, I could cross party lines in the primary and vote Democrat.
On the night of the Iowa caucus, I listened to the speeches of Edwards, Hillary and Obama. I will tell you now that Edwards' and Hillary's speeches scared me to the point that I decided right then and there that if either one of them is elected then I'm joining a militia to prepare for the coming disintegration of the Union. In fact, if I can't find a militia then I'm going to start one. Buy a few hundred acres of Tennessee wilderness and go practice war and survival.
Obama's speech was scary, but not to the point where I fear for the survival of my offspring. I can see me crossing the line to vote for him.
One major problem: I want to support someone in a local race (Bill Giannini for county Tax Assessor!) and voting in the Democrat primary would make that impossible. I have a larger impact in local races, so the Democrat options are out (until November, that is).
My seventh and final option is to vote for Fred Thompson in the primary (he is still on the Tennessee ballot) and Libertarian in the fall. I could easily get behind Wayne Allyn Root. These would be pure protest votes, a message to the collective GOP that they no longer represent me. [Besides, I saw Root speak at the Conservative Leadership Conference and absolutely loved him. His speech is on YouTube and also his campaign site.]
You often hear people say that they didn't leave the party, the party left them. I used to feel that way. But now I feel that I didn't leave the party, the party has run screaming past trying to be "moderate" to a total abandonment of all that makes it a force for good in this dangerous world.
And so I am decided. Fred Thompson in the primary. Then a few months to think about it with a probable vote for Wayne Allyn Root (current frontrunner in the Libertarian race) in the fall.
Update: The Fourth Horseman writes via email:
The only real issue I see between McCain and Clinton is Iraq, and I don't think there will be that much difference in the result once Clinton stops running to the left, i.e. after she has the nomination. I am almost to the point of "let them have it for four years" and then let's see if we can't have a candidate who can get it right. That might be better than letting McCain "work" with the Dems to pass "bi-partisan" socialist legislation.
To which Advised by Wolves responds:
Agreed. . . Either a McCain or a Clinton Presidency will be a failure. Let the “D” get the blame.
My problem with that is the fact that it would be Clinton with a Democrat (of the Pelosi flavor) congress working together -- a dangerous combination that could very well do irreparable harm to our flavor of freedom. Besides, with the press solidly on Hillary's side, the fact that the presidency is a failure won't come out for another 20 years. Just look at how many people still think Bill will be thought of kindly by history.
Still, their positions lend credence to my support of the Libertarian option.
Being Neolibertarian myself, I have a strong affinity for the Libertarian ideals and hold several local Libertarians in high regard.
But Right Wing Nation has several examples of why the Libertarian party continues to be considered a fringe party, teetering on being placed into the "whack job" category.
Harry Browne, who twice ran for U.S. president on the Libertarian ticket, has passed at the age of 72:Browne died Wednesday at his home in Franklin, Tenn. He had suffered from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis -- Lou Gehrig's disease -- for some time, a publicist said.Reactions:Browne led the Libertarian Party ticket in 1996 and 2000, collecting 485,798 votes the first time he ran for president and 384,431 the second, the party said in a release.
He was a well-known motivational speaker and the author of 12 books, including "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World," "Why Government Doesn't Work" and "The Great Libertarian Offer." He also founded DownsizeDC.org, a group aimed at reducing the size of government, a basic tenet of the Libertarian Party.
How did his presidential bids do at the polls? About as well as most third-party candidates do in a two-party system. Many people who might have voted for him either stayed home or worried at the last minute that they would be throwing away their votes or helping a candidate whom they feared, by failing to vote for the lesser of two evils.It is extremely difficult for any third-party candidate to overcome this problem. However: it was also during this period that many people in the two parties began to fear the Libertarian vote on grounds that, as small as it might be, it was enough to make a margin of difference in any race. The LP went from being dismissed to being feared, and this was Harry's doing. ...
We will all miss you terribly, Harry. May you find the freedom in the next life for which you fought so hard in this.
Browne was a controversial figure in the LP, at first because he had for years been one of the loudest anti-political voices in the movement before changing his mind and seeking the presidential nomination, and winning it, in 1996. He had been so loud and firm an anti-political voice, in fact, that the term "Browneing Out" was used in the 1970s in libertarian circles to mean retreating from any commitment to further libertarian goals through political action, or any sort of action. Part of finding freedom in an unfree world to Harry was freeing yourself from various "traps," including any expectations on others' part, or any cause's part, that you owed them a damn thing. ...Although his ideas about how libertarianism should be pursued changed, he was a consistently hardcore and vital voice for liberty. I hope he has in some sense escaped the most complicated and constraining trap of all.
I always liked Harry Browne, he was an honorable man in an honorable fight.
That said, some may find it interesting to revisit my spat with him, particularly since it put me on what some would consider the "crunchy" side of the libertarian-conservative divide. He criticized me here. And I responded here. And, for context, this was all part of larger brouhaha which can largely be gleened here. My views on libertarianism have, uh, evolved a bit.
Harry was one of the people who converted me to libertarianism. I still recall my first reading of How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World well over twenty years ago. At a time when I didn't have too much money I ordered a hardcover copy to be sent by airmail from the US when the book first came out. Harry's writings on economics led me to more intensive studies that are still paying off financially to this day.
Technorati Tags: Harry Browne, Libertarian Party, Libertarianism.