MUTH’S TRUTHS

POTUS Interruptus: Principle vs. Pragmatism

Posted: 03 Nov 2008 11:41 AM CST

The question for many undecided conservative voters tomorrow will be whether or not to reward Republicans for giving us yet another “lesser of two evils” presidential candidate or to vote for one of the third-party limited-government candidates, such Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party or Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. To explain how I came to my decision here in Nevada, let me first stipulate a pair of things from the get-go.

1. Barack Obama is a wet-behind-the-ears socialist totally unqualified for the job who, when the terrorists or the Russians or the Chinese or Iran or North Korea or Venezuela or Freedonia tests his mettle, as Joe Biden predicted, will likely (a) feel he needs to prove his manhood and over-react, or (b) pull a Neville Chamberlain. Either way, we’re screwed.2. John McCain is a patriotic military hero who would be a lot better than Barack Obama.So there’s no need to tell me and other undecided conservatives that John McCain is better than Barack Obama. We acknowledge it. We accept it. And for most conservatives, those arguments will once again be good enough – just as they’ve been for the better part of the last forty years.But for a large and growing number of conservatives and libertarians, all of those “lesser of two evils” arguments are now falling on deaf ears.And it’s not all John McCain’s fault.You see, conservatives aren’t just ticked off at getting another Nixon-Ford-Bush-Dole-Bush-type presidential nominee. We’re ticked off at the entire Republican Party for blowing their opportunity to remake government after they got everything they said they needed in 2004: control of the White House and majorities in both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate.Republicans won that triple-crown four years ago. They could have done pretty much whatever they wanted to shrink government. To eliminate departments. To eliminate programs. To eliminate agencies. To reform Social Security. To reform Medicare. To reduce spending. To undo at least some of the New Deal and the Great Society. They could have at least TRIED.Instead, they spent money in ways and quantities that Timothy Leary couldn’t have imagined in one of his wildest acid-induced hallucinations (I’m just guessing; I was only eight at the time). Not only has the deficit and the debt soared beyond comprehension, but these so-called, self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives couldn’t even make the modest Bush tax cuts permanent or unite as a caucus to swear off “earmarks.”So while those of you who urge conservatives to “hold their nose” and vote for John McCain because he’ll be so much better than Barack Obama make a legitimate argument for again supporting the “lesser of two evils” Republican candidate, I’m no longer prepared to criticize any conservative or libertarian who comes to the conclusion that again rewarding Republicans at the ballot box yet again is no longer an option.Now let me address what I’ve found to be the most insulting reason given by many McCain supporters for not voting for Barr or Baldwin – other than the arguments that I “have” to vote for McCain or that it’s my “duty” to vote for McCain. No, I don’t…and no, it isn’t. My vote has to be earned. It is not to be taken for granted or assumed because “there’s nowhere else to go.”For conservatives, there ARE other places to go – Barr or Baldwin – and many conservatives are going to tell Republicans where to go by going there on Tuesday, which many GOP establishment folks and many McCain supporters will insultingly call a “wasted” vote.Bull.If you look at the declining state of public education over the last forty-some years and the level of unconstitutional government foisted upon this country - combined with the commensurate loss of individual freedoms (“Sorry, sir, you can’t carry your toothpaste on the plane with you”) - despite Republicans holding the White House for all but twelve of those forty years, I’d say the wasted votes were those cast for the Republicans, not the Libertarians, independents (like Perot) or other third-party candidates. Talk about a waste!Or as Shane Cory - former executive director of the Libertarian Party, now working on the Barr campaign - reminded me, consider these words of wisdom by President John Quincy Adams:

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”

So I’m sorry, Republicans. A vote for a conservative candidate other than your nominee is NOT a wasted vote. Those voters are and have been trying to send you a message – a message you either refuse to hear or continue to ignore. And you continue to ignore it at your party’s, and the nation’s, peril.In addition, there are strategic reasons for voting for the Libertarian or Constitution candidates. You see, unlike the Republicans and Democrats, whose candidates automatically appear on the ballot, third-party candidates have to “qualify” to get their candidates on the ballot.This means that in a lot of states these parties have to spend an inordinate amount of money on “ballot access” – gathering signatures before the election to get their candidates’ names on the ballot, something the Republicans and Democrats don’t have to do. However, if these third-parties attract a sufficient percentage of the vote in various states tomorrow, their party will also automatically qualify to have their candidates appear on the ballots in the next election.So while the two major parties try to protect their turf by making it harder for third-party candidates to run for office, they’re also making it a “survival” vote for these same third-parties. Although, say, some Libertarians might be inclined to vote for McCain just to keep Obama out of the White House, they feel they have to vote for Barr just to keep their party on the ballot next time. Talk about being too smart by half.In addition, success breeds success. And the Libertarians, in particular, have gone a long way toward becoming a “real” political party in this election by nominating a presidential candidate in former Rep. Bob Barr who has run for high office, won high office and served in high office. He’s a recovering Republican who, while in Congress, earned an impressive lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 98.And his running mate, Wayne Allyn Root – a home-schooling dad from my home state of Nevada – is one of the more passionate public advocates of the limited government philosophy you’ll find west of the Pecos.These two aren’t your typical egg-headed “hippie” libertarian philosophers; they’re credible candidates for whom one could cast a vote comfortably. And with Barr and Root as their nominees, the Libertarians have the potential to pull more popular votes nationwide than ever in their history. If they can crack the one million-vote mark, it will be a huge shot in the arm and more and more people will consider their party in the future as a legitimate electoral alternative.And by the way, why should libertarian-leaning voters, particularly the Ron Paul supporters, vote for a candidate, McCain, who hasn’t even bothered asking for their vote?Barack Obama has courted Hillary Clinton’s voters, invoking her name and her causes often on the campaign stump. When has John McCain even mentioned Ron Paul, let alone asked Ron Paul’s supporters to vote for him? Accepting the fact that McCain and Paul were diametrically opposed on the war issue, there are still plenty of issues Paul has championed over the years on which he and McCain are on common ground. Why not talk about some of those issues on the stump?This problem is not unique to McCain. Republicans do this to libertarians all the time. They “reach out” to social conservatives, gun rights advocates, women, Hispanics, blacks – you name it. It seems that there’s no special interest group Republicans won’t grovel before.Except the libertarians. Folks who are kindred spirits. And folks who, unlike the other special interest groups, actually have a political party which fields candidates who can take just enough votes away from the Republicans to swing an election to the Democrats. Wouldn’t it be politically wise to at least toss ‘em a bone? To at least mention them? To at least ASK for their vote?I still remember the 1998 U.S. Senate race in Nevada between then-Rep. John Ensign and Sen. Harry Reid. Reid defeated Ensign by just 428 votes; however, the Libertarian candidate that year pulled in over 7,000 votes. When I asked the Chairman of the state Libertarian Party why they helped elect Harry Reid defeat a generally libertarian-leaning Republican, I was told the Libertarians had reached out to Ensign to discuss that before the election, but Ensign blew them off and refused to even meet with them.And the rest, as they say, is history. Senator Harry Reid is now Senate Majority Leader Harry “The War Is Lost” Reid.So let’s wrap this up. A vote for a third-party candidate is NOT a wasted vote. Barack Obama is a socialist. John McCain is far better than Barack Obama. We all know the reasons why B.O. is so bad, and we all know the qualities of Sen. McCain which are so good. And yet, conservatives also know he’s not really one of us. So what’s an undecided limited-government conservative voter to do?In my humble opinion, the decision on whether to vote for John McCain rests on three considerations.Appointments. The old Supreme Court argument doesn’t hold as much water this election as in the past. The two justices most likely to retire next are liberals. So a President Obama would get to replace two liberals with two liberal. That’s a wash. While conservatives won’t gain, they won’t lose either.But there’s more to the presidential appointment power than the Supreme Court. There are the lower courts. There are the cabinet positions. And there are thousands upon thousands of bureaucrat positions which the next administration will get to fill. And the people in those positions can have a tremendous effect on our government. Here are just two examples.* Jamie Gorelick was a Deputy Attorney General during the Clinton administration for which the infamous “Gorelick Wall” is named. That wall reportedly prevented various intelligence agencies from sharing information which may have prevented the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Gorelick also reportedly obstructed FBI efforts to investigate illegal campaign contributions to Clinton-Gore made by John Huang and Charlie Trie.* Franklin Raines was Bill Clinton’s budget director. He used that stint in the administration to land a cushy job as CEO of Fannie Mae, where, according to Wikipedia, “The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), the regulating body of Fannie Mae, (accused him) of abetting widespread accounting errors, which included the shifting of losses so senior executives, such as himself, could earn large bonuses.” Multi-million dollar bonuses. A few short years later, and it was Raines’ Fannie Mae which pretty much caused the collapse of the housing market and Wall Street.So yes, the appointment consideration goes way beyond the Supreme Court and has serious ramifications.Super-Majority. Yes, Barack Obama will try to swing this nation far to the Left if elected. However, the nation’s checks-and-balances system usually forces a president not to reach too far, too fast. The minority party in the Senate can block really bad appointments and legislation by using the filibuster, which requires 60 votes to break. So all the dire predictions of Barack Obama bringing about the political apocalypse and turning the U.S. into a socialist country would normally be overblown. Unless…Unless, in addition to winning the White House the Democrats also get a 60-vote majority in the Senate. If so, they can ram through any piece of legislation or appointment they want and Republicans will be powerless to stop them. And thanks to an absolutely miserable effort by Republicans in this year’s Senate races, Harry Reid just might get to 60.Getting to 60 tomorrow is going to be tough, but not impossible. But getting to 58 is certainly doable. And if so, Reid will be able to count on liberal Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe to help him overcome almost any GOP filibusters.And tops on Harry’s list will be legislation to do away with secret ballots in union organizing elections. This is the only way for organized labor to expand their ranks, and if successful, Big Labor will become even bigger and more powerful. That will be bad for business and a nightmare for Republicans.Folks, a 60-vote majority for Harry Reid is FAR more dangerous than a simple Barack Obama presidency.Military. Perhaps the most powerful argument in favor of a vote for John McCain came from a longtime reader and friend, Donna Brosemer of Palm Beach Gardens in Florida, who wrote: “As long as my son–or any mother’s son–is on active duty in a combat assignment, I will lose sleep over a Barack Obama commander-in-chief. So should you.”Indeed.Joe Biden got it absolutely correct when he warned that Obama would be tested early and often by our enemies. Not so with McCain. Our enemies will think twice, or more, before risking the wrath of John McCain. But Obama, with his calls to meet with our enemies without preconditions, is already perceived as weak. And weakness tempts aggression.Without doubt, Obama is going to face tough military situations and choices. And our soldiers, sailors and Marines will suffer the consequences of those choices. With no foreign policy or military experience to pull from, combined with a dangerous naiveté about our enemies and the “real” world, Obama is likely to make some deadly mistakes.Seriously. Obama and all too many Americans think you can reason with our lunatic Islamic enemies as if they were reasonable, rational people rather than religious nutcases. Just as a reminder of the mentality we’re dealing with here, consider this Associated Press story out of Mogadishu, Somalia (remember that under Clinton?) just yesterday…

“A 13-year-old girl who said that she had been raped was stoned to death after being accused of adultery by Islamic militants, a human rights group said. Dozens of men stoned Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow to death October 27 in a stadium packed with 1,000 spectators…”

Does anyone in their right mind think Barack Obama is going to be able to use “diplomacy” with barbarians such as this?So here’s the bottom line for me: It is in the nation’s best interest to elect John McCain, but it’s in the libertarian-conservative limited-government movement’s best interest for Bob Barr to crack a million votes. In an ideal world, I’d vote for Barr in a heartbeat. But we’re not in an ideal world, and practical considerations must be, well, considered.So I’ve decided to “vote swap.”I’ve suggested this numerous times in the past to Muth’s Truths readers – as well as the McCain and Barr campaigns - and a number of you have taken me up on it.You see, in our electoral system it doesn’t matter which candidate wins the popular vote. The genius of our Founding Fathers established a presidential electoral system based on winning states. Each state has a set number of electoral votes. My state of Nevada, for example, gets five electoral votes. California, by comparison, gets 55. And the candidate who racks up 270 electoral votes…wins.This system allows for “strategic voting.” It works like this…Nevada is a swing state. For McCain to win it, every vote counts. Maryland, on the other hand is a solid Obama state. There’s simply no way on God’s green earth for John McCain to win Maryland, just as there’s no way on God’s green earth for Obama to win Utah.So I’ve agreed to vote for John McCain here in Nevada in exchange for my McCain-supporting brother voting for Bob Barr in Maryland. It’s a win-win. Barr gets another vote toward his million vote goal and McCain gets a much-needed vote in a swing state.And that’s exactly what I’m encouraging every other libertarian and conservative to do, as well. If you live in a swing or “toss up” state, vote for McCain. If you live in a “lock” state for either McCain or Obama, vote for Barr. Or if you prefer, Chuck Baldwin. Or if he’s on the ballot or you can write in his name, Ron Paul.According to an estimate by RealClearPolitics, Obama right now has 278 electoral votes in states which are solidly with him or leaning in his direction. McCain has 132 solidly in his camp or leaning in his direction. That leaves 128 electoral votes as “Toss Ups.”This means McCain needs to hold the states presently “leaning” in his direction (South Dakota, West Virginia and Arkansas), as well as pick up a few of the states “leaning” in Obama’s direction (Colorado, Nevada, Pennsylvania and New Mexico), plus win a large chunk of the “toss up” states (Florida, North Carolina, Missouri, Indiana, Georgia, Montana, Arizona, Virginia and Ohio).A “toss up” is defined as either candidate having less than a 5-point composite polling advantage. Why I give RealClearPolitics a great deal of credibility in these determinations is that they don’t base their assessments on just one poll, but on the average of a number of polls. Kinda like the Olympics: Throw out the high and low score and then take the average of what remains.So if you’re a limited-government conservative-libertarian who lives in any of the above states, vote for McCain. But if you live in one of the unnamed “lock” states, feel free to pull the lever or hanging chad for Barr or Baldwin.Two final closing thoughts…First, if John McCain, by some miracle, wins on tomorrow, his honeymoon with conservatives should last until Wednesday.Conservatives cannot give McCain the same pass on bad legislation, appointments and policies that they gave W in the beginning of his administration just because he was “our guy.” As David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union, said in his keynote address at the Conservative Leadership Conference in September, when McCain is right, conservative should support him, but when he’s wrong, conservatives should oppose him. From Day One. With vigor.Secondly, this is the last time.I don’t care if the Democrats nominate Karl Marx himself for president in the future. I will not vote for a “lesser of two evils” Republican candidate again regardless of whether I live in a swing state or not. To paraphrase the Gipper, Republicans should not send us another candidate like this (Nixon, Ford, Bush, Dole, Bush or McCain), and if they do, I will not vote for them. Period.So all of you Republicans who have written begging me to vote for John McCain this year, you got your wish but you’re also on notice. Be careful who you nominate in 2012 because I, for one, am not going to take this any longer. You will not scare me into voting for a “lesser of two evils” Republican candidate any longer. Enough is enough. Case closed. Exclamation point!Best of luck tomorrow, Sen. McCain and America. Barack, break a leg.