This 2008 election cycle I have been doing a lot of browsing through the internet looking at various Third Party web sites or so called Independent sites searching for news you normally don't hear in the mainstream media since I decided to vote for someone other than Obama and McCain.
The crazy thing I noticed which may be a normal occurrence at these web sites, but regardless, found it equally disturbing was that the bloggers who I presume by their comments will all be voting Third Party go to such large extents in smearing each others candidates. I have seen everything from people posting gossip, rumors, and lies to simply denigrating each other for believing in something or someone different or an all together different platform than that of the other. The blogs are filled with conspiracy theories, wild interpretations, and everything is taken personal and everything is highly exaggerated.
I compare it to watching an Obama or McCain attack ad on TV but it is actually much worse as they contain the same elements of distortion and statements or words taken out of content and date.
It really is a turn off and I decided not to visit these sites too often as it almost makes me sick enough to go back and vote for the lesser of two evils. The back and forth between bloggers who may be just kids for all one knows since they behave that way is a clear attempt to convince each other to leave one Third Party candidate for their own Third Party Candidate.
Worse than that, there are people who have nothing constructive or positive to say and their whole purpose is to create chaos or simply be vindictive. What I mean by that is there seems to be disgruntled members of Third Parties who did not get their wish in having their candidate win the nomination of their Party and all they do is spend their time and efforts in doing whatever they can to tear down the actual winner and attempt to create dissention among the supporters. I have even caught a few posts under different names as to create the illusion of masses.
Recently the rhetoric hit an all time high when apparently Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin for President. The opportunists I am describing above came out in full force and the words being tossed around were disappointing. I bring this example up because as I mentioned in the beginning, I decided to vote for someone other than Obama and McCain and chose Bob Barr, The Libertarian Party candidate, as my choice for President.
So it was really interesting for me to study human nature and the dynamics of these posts. To be perfectly clear, the smearing and name calling came from both sides.
My feeling on the issue is good for Chuck Baldwin who is a Pastor and the Presidential Candidate for the Constitution Party. As a Bob Barr supporter, there is nothing wrong in admitting it would have been very nice to receive Ron Paul's endorsement. This would have generated additional publicity and as we all know access to the news media and publicity is hard to come by for any Third Party candidate as both Senator Obama and McCain go to great lengths to block and monopolize coverage.
However, at the same token, I am not going to change my vote due to one endorsement made by one Republican congressman.
In one of my many past endeavors, I was a Branch Manager for a credit union. Now for those who don't know, Credit Unions are not-for-profit organizations as opposed to Banks, but they offer the same financial products and services. We would never solicit or go after members of another credit union and ask or pitch them to leave their credit union to join ours and plenty of chances there were; as most credit unions serve as shared facilities which meant you can come to X-credit union and make a deposit for Y-credit union. Our targets for growth were customers from banks who after all represented more than 90% of the market share.
Do you see where I am going with this? Third Party supporters should not go after each other and smear each other at that, but go out and convince the average American who is naive since all they know is what the media tells them and open their minds and bring back the spirit of Individualism that America was founded on, so they can start begin to think for themselves again. It is like the movie "The Matrix" they have to get unplugged from the matrix and realize they are being used and controlled by this Duopoly.
Third Party supporters have more in common than they realize regardless of ideology or philosophy and should band together even if it is in spirit. We should do what we can to write editorials, write to the media, write to our congressmen, our senators, the debate commission, news outlets, and be active in exposing the pervasive corruption and challenging the establishment and showing fellow Americans how Obama and McCain are the ones lacking real solutions to our nation's problems.
The 700 billion dollar bailout could not serve as better proof. We should be focusing and working fast and furious in placing pressure on opposing this bailout from hell. We have to educate our fellow citizens.
In the words of Ralph Nader "There can be no daily democracy without daily citizenship." Please join me these final days left until Election Day in doing what we can to open the eyes of our fellow Americans and show them they do in fact have a choice come November 4th. Vote Third Party!
©2008 Jonathan Cymberknopf, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Friday, September 26, 2008
Last modified: Friday, September 26, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of Jonathan Cymberknopf only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Jonathan Cymberknopf is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Jonathan Cymberknopf of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Jonathan Cymberknopf |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: Brian Holtz
Date: 2008-09-26 11:11:16
Jonathan, my priority isn’t “challenging the establishment”; my priority is advocating liberty and challenging all who oppose it. Conservative parties like the GOP and the CP oppose personal liberty, so I challenge them. Liberal parties like the Democrats and Greens oppose economic liberty, so I challenge them too. There is only one party that consistently advocates both personal and economic liberty, and that’s the party I support. I highlight the distinctions beween the CP and the LP only so that Ron Paul supporters will be fully informed about what liberties they will be counted as opposing if they follow Paul’s advice and vote CP.
I can’t agree that it’s a “smear” to point out what liberties the CP opposes. If you know of a more gentle way to describe the LP-CP differences, then please demonstrate it. And if instead you think the LP-CP differences are not to be discussed, then please admit that’s what you’re saying.
Posted By: daddysteve
Date: 2008-09-26 14:17:22
If there is one party that had a big chance to grow this year, it was the libertarians. I was kind of rooting for Gravel but was willing to support Barr until he continued to blather on about intervention in South America. I dumped the republican party because of this neocon crap. On the upside, it appears that Iowa will allow write-ins. therefor the good doctor gets my vote. Eat your heart out America, I may get to do what millions wish they could do.
Posted By: censoredagain
Date: 2008-09-26 16:47:23
DaddySteve you are so right!!!
This year could have been a great year for the Libertarian party when Ron Paul ended his campaign. But we had to nominate Barr. More and more people are becoming tired of the status quo and Barr is a Neo Con Libertarian clothing. I will admit that I am voting for him but only because my ballot will have 3 people L R and D. I am using Barr as the "none of the above" I wish was on all ballots. Also because it make it easier for the LP if they get over 5% of the vote in the general election. So I am voting for the party not Barr. But the LP did pass up a great opportunity this election cycle.
Posted By: Robert Dupuy
Date: 2008-09-26 21:33:02
Smaller political parties, may be small, but are still political parties.
Imagine the Republican/Democratic parties having to go to one site to get their news. Well you don't have to imagine, read through the comments section at cbsnews.com
Same fighting.
The reality is 3rd parties are not alike. They won't agree. They are competitors.
Its also a true thing, that at Independentpolticalreport.com and thirdpartywatch.com that they have assembled enough experts, and quality writers, that yes indeed, a green party member, and a libertarian may both find the resource interesting.
I'm going to write an article...I'm working on it now, to explain why 3rd parties should never unite. You know this has been tried in other countries...to the destruction of the movements involved.
I recognize you will need more details, and I will try to get them soon, but in the meanwhile, in short IT NEVER WORKS ITS A TERRIBLE IDEA.
Why are you advocating this idea? Is it based on anything? Do you have experience in these movements, do you have some evidence to point to that it works...
You called these partisans childish, I will say, that you don't seem as childish, but you have one characteristics of a younger person...this 'emo' need for unity and almost polyannish inability to handle strong opinions and normal conflict that is part of democracy.
Posted By: Robert Dupuy
Date: 2008-09-26 21:41:59
" Barr is a Neo Con Libertarian clothing. "
That's just an unqualified statement. Bob Barr is a former neo con, and its true his record in congress is repugnant.
But, he's been working for Libertarian causes for several years now, and he's a very eloquent speaker, that very much advocates libertarian ideals.
He does not at all, advocate neo-con ideas for many years now.
This Bob Barr as neo-con idea unfortunatley comes from allowing our opponent to define us, as in the CP, and in part because the LP never unifies around its candidate...we go to the convention intendingn to support someone, say George Phillies, and we leave the convention, still intending to support that very same person.
The LP would do better if that sort of attitude ended, but we all know it won't, so we have to set it as our goal...something realistic, which is just to do better than past LP candidates have done.
Thats where I would also criticize Bob Barr. He was shooting for the moon, when I would have been happy if he had just done, 50% better than Harry Brownes first run for president.
He didn't know how to run a small campaign, to maximize its effectiveness. Still too new to the LP to know how to handle the primadonna's, and unfortunatley, nut jobs that sometimes control the state parties.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-09-27 05:19:13
I think it's amusing and ironic that a Barr supporter is saying that third parties should be working together and supporting each other when it was Barr who chose not to participate in Ron Paul's attempt to present a united third party front to challenge the Republicrats. The other third party candidates tried to work together, but not Barr, so the author contents that's everyone else's fault.
If you really want to push for third party unity, I suggest you tell Bob Barr.
Posted By: Jonathan Cymberknopf
Date: 2008-09-27 06:11:36
I am so disapointed by these comments.
Continue to smear each other, how very productive.
Posted By: Buckeye Kned
Date: 2008-09-27 07:10:21
Human nature to smear each other. That won't change. But what is disturbing is the attempt to "heard cats" every year within the LP. I frankly don't think it will work. No matter WHO the LP nominates, there will be people upset.
And frankly, some of the mis-informationout there about the LP is just ridiculous or plain ignorant. I would bet some of those comments about Bob Barr and the LP convention come from people who were not even there or don't understand how our rules and bylaws work. We have a real convention, not some coronation. And yes, it took SIX ballot rounds for Bob Barr to win-- he didn't have anything given to him. And no he was NOT my first choice. It was a legitimate election at a national convention. so lets' move on.
I'll take 5% or 300,000 of the vote in Ohio-- better than the .000000 whatever that Badnarik got which was about 15,000 votes. Bottom line, the LP needs to run more credible and "acceptable" candidates at the top of the ticket, so the state parties don't have to deplete their cash fighting for ballot access-- like in OHIO. Yes, some states have it easy, but others don't. 5% or more from Barr and we are ballot qualified for another two years and we can actually concentrate on running lower office candidates-- where we can WIN by the way. Groom these down-ticket candidates to be higher ticket candidates in the future. It's called a farm-system in baseball.
Let's get with it. Some of those bloggers need to come out of the bunkers and basements and smell some reality. Way too many primadona self-serving egotists in this group that want to be a big fish in the small pond.
Posted By: Jonathan Cymberknopf
Date: 2008-09-27 07:19:52
Thank you Buckeye for injecting some common sense
Posted By: Urbanarama
Date: 2008-09-27 07:23:15
Of course, if you MUST vote for someone other than the Libertarian Party, then at least vote a third-party candidate, to help break the stranglehold of the two-party system. But really, why would you vote for anyone BUT the Libertarians? They're the only ones who want YOU to be free to spend your money, raise your kids, and speak your mind the way YOU see fit, without interference from the government or the church. No party is more American. No party is truer to the vision of the Founding Fathers.
Posted By: Jonathan Cymberknopf
Date: 2008-09-27 08:52:23
You got that right Urbanarama. And there is also nothing wrong in pointing out the differences between the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party. The preambles are very clear . What I find disgusting is the posts especially at www.thirdpartywatch.com
Posted By: Anonymous
Date: 2008-09-27 15:43:19
It's my opinion that, while definitely not perfect, Barr is also definitely not in someone else's pocket. I've heard him make several extremely revealing comments that one would expect to be left unmentioned if he were really a plant or stooge of the establishment.
It's true that his conversion to libertarian philosophy appears to be incomplete and in-progress. It's also true that it can be slow and difficult to separate yourself from 20-30 years of your past experience. From most of what I've seen so far he's firmly supportive of the Libertarian Party, and continues to move his positions on various issues in our direction. I'll continue to give him the benefit of the doubt until he proves me wrong by a preponderance of the evidence, and not simply on occasion when his past views manage to shine through.
Posted By: susan 28
Date: 2008-09-28 16:11:06
what Buckeye said.. and i think what Urbana said was essentially the point of this article, i don't think Jonathan was advocating the sort of "death by coalition building" style of underdog-merging that happens in places like Canada and Australia, he simply meant that Libertarians rock, but we should at least give a nod, not to the platforms of other 3rd parties (though we cross over with verious planks, just as we do with some of the Big 2's planks, and should congratulate and encourage them on those planks), but simply to the fact that they are at least promoting critical thought over herd-following, and that's something we can all get behind.
my thoughts on Barr are similar to Anonymous at 15:43:19. i think we might could file the South America gaffe under "old habits die hard", but Bob's heart and mind do seem to be in the right place. i do challenge his abortion stance, but at least, like Paul, he makes a libertarian argument for it and doesn't just fall back on religious dogma, which shows the Repubs up for the special-interest shills they are, even on matters of life and death. he's also willing to leave it to the states, where i'd also fight abortion laws, but i'd rather fight my local state than the Fed, and have long been a believer in the original Articles of Confederation as a much less statist document than the Constitution. so by my own philosophy, i'd have to leave it up to the states too. i always get nervous to see an anti-choicer at the federal level, but if he's willing to hold to the states' rights plank, then cool. hopefully he'll do it with drug policy as well.
i wanted Ms Ruwart with either Kubby or Gravel in tow, and did choke on a whole peck o' sour grapes at what seemed like sort of a tactical delegate-toss by Root, like they planned it in advance or something, but that's politics, and what ultimately brought me down to earth was the ballot access argument that Buckeye made: that ballot access is our most valuable asset and helps us on every level, and some of the things we like least about Barr are the very things that will pull that corssover vote and garner us that precious access for our viable lower-level candidates who are, errrr.... "real" Libertarians..
quick question: are the primary delegates of our candidates bound to vote for a candidate other than the one they origianlly supported if that candidate "throws" them to another candidate? ie: were Wayne's delegates bound to vote for Bob once Wayne threw them to him? or did he merely suggest they vote for Bob when he dropped out?
BTW Jonathan i came here via your post on the Barr Blog!
28
Posted By: Anonymous
Date: 2008-09-28 17:59:19
I don't think it's binding, Susan. I'm confident it's just a liberty that can be taken by an eliminated candidate during their brief concession speech to exert influence over subsequent rounds of balloting.
Posted By: Jonathan
Date: 2008-09-28 19:01:50
Thank you Susan for your comments. You get me .
Posted By: Stephen
Date: 2008-09-28 20:14:29
hi Jonathan. I have nothing much to add to your article and susan's response above, but wanted to let you know I stopped by. (I'm a Barr supporter, and believe that he is a man who has learned and adjusted from where he was in the past. We've can't rule out a good conversion, otherwise how can we expect millions of new people to become Libertarian/Independent/Third Party in thought and action who are currently Republicrats that haven't figured out that there party is one head of a two-headed monster)