« Bush tells Florida about Castro's Devious Practices | Main | Free George Bush & John Kerry Political Cartoon »
July 19, 2004
Who nominates Michael Badnarik?
I hear the voices and they are getting louder.
"We want Michael Badnarik in the poll," they chant.
In every election there is a third party candidate that always stands out. Call him the underdog....an unlikely candidate who is struggling to get ahead in the race. In 2004 Elections, there is a toss-up between Ralph Nader and Michael Badnarik as the two third party candidates to go neck-and-neck for a chance in becoming a major contender.
But while Badnarik has 1% in presidential polls, Nader holds 4.6%. So my question for all you bloggers is this, should Badnarik be added to our poll? Does he have enough influence on the people, even though he is not mentioned in most polls?
This presidential blog wants to be fair and let people voice their opinion. Like we mentioned before at the beginning of the blog, we want a place where different points-of-view can be discussed. From looking at all the comments, I can see that there is more bashing going on than friendly discussions. Let's keep the comments less directed at the blogger who posts and more directed at the issues.
Posted by Elouise at July 19, 2004 05:27 PM
Comments
Yes Badarik should be in the poll, and if Nader is in the presidential debates than I think would only be fair to also have Badarik.
Posted by: OHIO Dem at July 19, 2004 08:58 PM
Absolutely. I nominate Michael Badnarik to be in the poll. Thank you very much.
http://www.badnarik.org/
Posted by: Doug Kenline at July 20, 2004 01:36 AM
I think so. The more choices there are in the presidential race, the more likely people are going to find someone they can relate to. Of course, this should be within reason. We cannot have everyone running. I think four is a good number of major canadates.
Posted by: Jirai at July 20, 2004 08:33 PM
Why is he not in the poll?
Posted by: Bruce VB at July 20, 2004 09:16 PM
Well if you don't put him in, you're 'undecided' camp is going to show an inaccurate number of undecided voters...
Posted by: Ben at July 21, 2004 03:18 PM
Sure he can be in the poll as long as he's splitting the conservative vote and not the liberal. We need all the votes we can get. Where's Ross Perot when you need him? How 'bout we vote to remove Nader?
Posted by: Lola at July 22, 2004 04:37 AM
Hey! What about David Cobb, the Green Party nominee?
www.votecobb.org
David is going to be on anywhere from 30-40 ballot lines this fall (likely more than Nader, likely slightly less than Badnarik), receive hundreds of thousands of votes and has as much a chance of getting elected as Nader or Badnarik.
You poll won't be accurate until all the choices we will legitimately have access to at the ballot box (unless we live in a state with insanely restrictive ballot qualification requirements like OK) are available to us online.
I voted for Nader in this poll, but I would vote for Cobb otherwise.
Posted by: Thomas Leavitt at July 22, 2004 06:14 AM
Badnarik is going to be on the ballot in many states and represents what is probably the fourth (or maybe even third) biggest party in the US. In the interest of choice I would think he should definitely be included. Why hasn't he been already?
Same for David Cobb, the Green Party Presidential nominee for the same reasons.
Posted by: Blyden at July 22, 2004 07:29 AM
By all means, put third party candidates in your poll! But please don't leave out David Cobb.
David Cobb and Pat LaMarche were nominated by the Green Party of the United States at the party's national nominating convention. State parties across the country held preference polls and primaries to instruct their delegates' votes at the convention. Ralph Nader would have been the most popular option for the GPUS ticket had he not decided to run as an independent and decline to accept a GPUS nomination. Faced with having to choose "no nomination" in order to endorse Nader, a majority of Greens preferred to nominate Cobb.
You can get more information about the convention and the candidates at:
www.gp.org
www.votecobb.org
Posted by: Michael Canney at July 22, 2004 07:39 AM
Not only should Badnarik be included, but also the only the other party **nominated** candidate, David Cobb of the Green Party. If you do not include these candidates, who are both running national campaigns, you will be deliberately skewing the results and missing the pervasive interest in hearing voices other than those of Kerry and Bush.
Furthermore, while I agree that Ralph Nader should also be included, you list him as the candidate of the "Independent Party". First, there is no such national party. Second, he has not been nominated by any party, only endorsed by the Reform Party, which gives Nader ballot access in 7 states, 15 fewer than the Green Party has.
Posted by: Jim at July 22, 2004 08:40 AM
What about David Cobb and Pat LaMarche of the Green party?
They are the candidates of the fastest growing 3rd party in the US.
They're actually going to be on something like 40 or so state ballots-more than Nader!
Likewise, Badnarik is going to be on more state ballots than Nader.
Hardly a poll when you are excluding 2 candidates a majority of voters in this nation will have as a choice!
Posted by: Luna at July 22, 2004 09:14 AM
What about David Cobb and Pat LaMarche of the Green party?
They are the candidates of the fastest growing 3rd party in the US.
They're actually going to be on something like 40 or so state ballots-more than Nader!
Likewise, Badnarik is going to be on more state ballots than Nader.
Hardly a poll when you are excluding 2 candidates a majority of voters in this nation will have as a choice!
Posted by: Luna at July 22, 2004 09:15 AM
David Cobb, the presidential candidate of the the third largest and fastest growing political party in the US, the Green Party
Posted by: michael at July 22, 2004 09:42 AM
Why isnīt David Cobb, the nominee of The Green Party included? His party selected him as their standard bearer, has more representation in various offices around the country, (from mayorships to city councils to State legislatures), and is the fastest growing political party in the United States. ANy thoughts?
Posted by: Jose M. Tirado at July 22, 2004 09:45 AM
Add Badnarik and Cobb
Posted by: Jules77 at July 22, 2004 11:21 AM
David Cobb is the Green party Nominee and should be in the softvote pole. He is already on the ballot in 24 states and will increase that number before Nov 2.
www.votecobb.org
Posted by: Kyle Dansie at July 22, 2004 11:51 AM
I agree -- David Cobb needs to be included in the poll. So do other third party candidates like Badnarik.
Posted by: Brian at July 22, 2004 12:58 PM
Include DAVID COBB NOW in your polls. He is the official candidate of the Green Party of the United States, representing over 300,000 registered greens. He'll be on the ballot in over 40 states. Cobb will get more votes than Nader!!
Posted by: Leslie Bonett at July 22, 2004 02:26 PM
Even through i am supporting Pres. Bush, i think in fairness both the Lib. & green party should be included
Posted by: HerbDunford at July 24, 2004 10:32 PM
Perhaps the Libertarian Party is moving ahead in their promotional skills. We all know Bill Gates is a Libertarian.
Posted by: Blogsquatter at July 24, 2004 11:00 PM
If it were me, I would simply have "Another Candidate" in addition to the 2 major candidates and "Undecided" - people who would vote for a 3rd party candidate already know who they're going to vote for. For example, EVERYONE who will vote for the Green Pary candidate already knows that it's David Cobb, pure and simple, and they don't need to be told his name.
The other way to do it would be to either add both the Libertarian and Green candidates (Badnarik and Cobb) or a general "Other Candidate - Left" and "Other Candidate - Right" categories to include all the 3rd parties.
Posted by: JOHN at July 26, 2004 11:19 AM
Yes. Lets show a true number. Hey, as far as I know, undecided has not registered in all fifty states ;-)
Posted by: Jeff at July 26, 2004 01:58 PM
Yes, Badnarik, Cobb, Peroutka and every other candidate for President should be listed. Saying their poll numbers are too low to merit inclusion begs the question. Isn't determining those numbers what this is all about? Give folks a chance to vote for these candidates and let the results speak for themselves!
Posted by: Charlie at July 27, 2004 01:50 PM
Definitely both the green and libertarian candidates should be included in the poll, for accuracy about who's on the ballot and to reduce the number of undecideds are two great reasons...
Also it would likely make the libs less likely to whine about Nader taking votes since both would take some from Bush as well... If only were on all 50 state ballots...
Posted by: Ken at July 28, 2004 09:06 AM
Why are all of you so interested in wasting your votes?? None of these candidates you are mentioning are going to win this year. Your vote will be wasted because your candidate will not win. Choose the candidate you agree with who is most likely to win. Your votes for parties with 1% of the polls are pointless in determining the next president.
Posted by: Rachel at July 29, 2004 10:02 AM
The point isn't that the other candidates could win, it's that they need a certain amount of votes to get funding for future elections. In the UK for instance they have about 6 parties running. I think it would be good for the other parties to get support so that more issues get considered. Personally I'm sick of the two party system. It may seem like a waste right now, but if more people voted for the other parties they would eventually increase in popularity.
Posted by: Art at July 29, 2004 10:18 AM
Voting for a third party candidate in not a wasted vote Rachel...voting for the lesser of two evils is! Vote your conscience even if it happens to be Bush or Kerry, but don't vote FOR one because you're AGAINST the other. Doing so will only continue this duopoly nightmare. BADNARIK should be in the polls!!
Posted by: Bob Thompson at July 30, 2004 01:46 PM
If you think voting to try to change the standing government is a wasted vote, then YOU are the ones who have given up on the system.
Don't forget that there have been other parties in the past-- the Whigs(!) even managed to get a couple of candidates elected. Are we so "bought and paid for" by the two standing parties that we can only eat what they decide to feed us?? Remember, it was an effective one-party system (Republican) that led to many of the problems that created the US Civil War. Hmm... a country near-evenly divided between dimetrically opposed viewpoints... feeling like there was no way to change things without a confrontation... who could imagine that ever happening again?
Nothing will change as long as we keep reelecting these same power-whores into power positions. One of the main reasons you are seeing resistance to having 3rd- and 4th-party nominees is that their positions on key issues typically threaten the "good-ol'-boy", "business as usual" methods that have created many of the problems we now face as a nation. No one in modern US politics wants to risk their cushy government job, or their profitable political alliances, particularly when they pay backdoor benefits that would be considered a king's ransom in most other parts of the world. Because of that, those who work in both political parties are against fundamental change of any kind, no matter what they say publicly.
I'm tired of being given a choice between the lesser of two evils. As long as it is just these two groups running the country, we will continue to swing like a pendulum between D-bad and R-bad. I will continue to vote for third party candidates, on the off-chance that some day the rest of the lemmings will wake up and realize how badly they've been brainwashed.
From a recent joke: "Why do we carefully judge and evaluate from among 50 candidates to find Miss America, but flip a coin between only two candidates for the Presidency?"
Posted by: James at July 30, 2004 05:06 PM
Re Rachel's question about "wasting" one's vote:
I live in WA state, which is solidly in the Kerry column. By your logic, I shouldn't bother to vote for Bush, Nader, Cobb, Badnarik, Peroutka or any other candidate who has no chance of winning the state's electoral college votes. Kerry will win in WA, no matter how I or anyone opposed to him votes (or abstains from voting).
So why do we vote when the outcome is preordained? To send a signal to future candidates and members of Congress, telling them where we stand and what sort of positions we would like them to take if they want to represent us. For many voters in similar circumstances, a vote for a third-party candidate is a more accurate signal than a vote for either of the major-party candidates.
If the race in WA state becomes closer, then I might consider the kind of pragmatic, lesser-of-two-evils approach you seem to be suggesting. But otherwise, I plan to vote my conscience.
Posted by: Charlie at August 3, 2004 01:26 PM
If this election is as close, as many say, or want us to believe, I think Badnarik should be on the poll. If he has 1% of the vote, this could make a difference in a close election. All votes should be counted, even if it is for an underdog candidate.
Personally, I don't think this will be as close as many are saying. I think the American values and morals will prevail and George Bush will lead us, with his faith, for another 4 years.
Posted by: Vicky at August 3, 2004 11:34 PM
Cobb? Baldernik? As Jerry Seinfeld once said, "Who are these people?". Let's get serious people, we as a nation cannot afford four more years of George Bush. I am backing Kerry as he is the only person who has a shot of beating Bush, and would be much better than the current (lack of) administration in D.C..
Sincerely,
Wayne Wilson
Massachusetts
Posted by: Wayne Wilson at August 4, 2004 05:15 PM
Yes, we need to add the Libertarian candidate to the mix. Unfortunatly while people take someone like Nader serious, they have yet to take a Libertarian candidate serious at all. I think the most viable third party choice is the libertarian and not the green party choice. Please include Mr Bednarik so those of us in the solid Bush states can show our support for him.
Posted by: James at August 4, 2004 06:40 PM
Badnarik is the nominated candidate of the third largest political party in the United States (sorry Greens, you're not there yet). He's going to be on most, if not all, State ballots (though probably more than Nader), and has started showing up in polls with more than 5% of the vote in some states (http://www.cpod.ubc.ca/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=3695). He also has been listed as the second choice for 43% of Americans (http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2004/7/emw145242.htm). He's a legitimate candidate, and he should be represented. By only adding Nader, and ignoring Badnarik, and other third party candidates, you are doing a disservice to those who stand for real change in politics.
Posted by: Maurice Reeves at August 6, 2004 04:17 PM
So far thats 9 votes for Badnarik, 4 for Cobb (in a post about Badnarik), 14 for both (or all candidates running) to be included and 3 who think "everything is beautiful" just as it is.
Since those who aren't "political junkies" often find out about candidates through polls, the only reason to keep them off is to maintain a deception. JOHN (July 26th) was particularly obvious at this attempt. Hey, why not simplify the poll to "Voting" or "Not Voting" since EVERYONE knows who they're voting for, not just minor party voters. His "Other Left" and "Other Right" idea still leaves out Libertarians who are neither left or right. (Go to www.TheAdvocates.org and take the "World's Smallest Political Quiz" for proof.)
So when will this site do something about what is obviously unfair? You might ask when I will buy anything from its sponsors as well, for this answer hinges on the other.
Posted by: Wayne Harley at August 7, 2004 12:27 PM
Wayne makes a good point. Polls are themselves one of the key ways in which voters obtain information about the existence and viability of candidates. When a poll doesn't even mention a third-party candidate, it lends credence to the idea that he isn't a viable choice --- that the only "realistic" or "serious" option is to choose one of the major party candidates.
But if the purpose of the poll is to find out what people really think, it should not make any such presuppositions about the results.
Moreover, by not offering choices which will be on the actual ballot, the poll fails as an indicator of what voters will actually do when faced with that ballot. For example, when faced with a poll offering him only Bush, Kerry or Nader, someone who is actually inclined to vote for Cobb might choose Kerry. This creates a false impression of Kerry's strength.
Posted by: Charlie at August 9, 2004 12:29 PM
It makes absolutely no sense to refuse to show certain candidates.
If you think I'm wrong, just list the opposition candidates, and keep Kerry & Bush off the poll.
Forcing supporters of these candidates to choose "other candidate" or "don't know" will prove the point. The result will be Badnarik, Cobb & Nader getting the bulk of votes!
PEACE
Steven R. Linnabary
Posted by: Steven R. Linnabary at August 15, 2004 11:31 PM
This country is really in the "GRIPs" of the two parties and the people are kept from hearing anything else. Money, money...and what a waste of money the two convention are. What is the point when the results are preordained??
When are the people going to rise up and demand to know all options before the election, all of them. In the debates, on the ballot, Michael Bagnarik all the way!
Posted by: Mickey de Rham at August 16, 2004 06:30 AM
Please add Michael Badnarik to the poll.
-Nick
Posted by: Nick Sarwark at August 16, 2004 02:40 PM
I nominate Michael Badnarik for inclusion in the poll. He will be on the ballot in 49 or 50 states, more than any other alternative to Bush/Kerry. He has been polling at 5% in New Mexico and 3% nationwide. Let his name be added. Nifty software, by the way.
Regards
Posted by: George Whitfield at August 16, 2004 07:19 PM
Jeff (July 26) had it exactly right... limiting the poll options to those who are polling well begs the question! If I ask you your favorite food, but only list hamburgers and pizza because I naively assume that those are the most common answers, then the poll is useless as an actual measure of what it seeks to ascertain. I could have just as easily chosen cake and ice cream as my assumptions, and the voters would mostly choose one or the other, not even considering hamburgers and pizza. Adding an "other" category is not sufficient to represent all other viable options since you create a false dichotomy with the first two choices. Moreover, giving bios of those two choices and none of the others gives people a sense of being informed enough to choose between the two, but not informed enough about any alternatives.
What you should do is include every single candidate who is on enough ballots to actually have a chance of getting the minimum electoral votes needed to win the presidency. At this moment, I believe that is five: Peroutka, Cobb, Badnarik, Kerry, and Bush. Alternatively, since you are doing it by state anyway, give the options which will actually be on that state's ballot. This would be the most fair method, and it might actually get some candidates on more ballots if people see them polling well among the states in which they have already gotten ballot access.
Moreover, if you are going to provide a bio for any of the candidates, you have to do so for all of them, else you falsely bias your results. There will be no Bush or Kerry campaign posters outside of the voting booths to create top-of-mind awareness like your site's banners do.
Only after making these changes will your poll actually reflect the reality of the election, unless like the two major parties, you're trying to marginalize the non-evil choices. But if that were the case, your poll would look pretty stupid if some of the other candidates got into the debates and the American people at large began learning of the alternatives.
Posted by: Tom at August 17, 2004 05:12 PM
Nader poll results are "virtual" and misleading. They should be corrected by taking into account where he's on the ballot.
1% in 50 states represents more votes than 3% in 10 states.
Also, Nader is a media product. As long as the only "official" option is Nader, he will score higher. Polls have a positive feedback on opinion.
On the other hand, Badnarick campaign and the Libertarian Party are quietly but surely building up their momentum. In Pennsylvania, the libertarian activists turned over more than 44,000 signatures. The libertarian Party was featured in the "Up" column of politicspa.com.
Badnarick is definitely the rising star, and Nader a fading idol. Your poll should definitely include him.
Posted by: Charles Fournier at August 17, 2004 10:04 PM
"Enigma didn't want to clutter the application with too many candidates," states the August 16 press release explaining the decision to drop Ralph Nader rather than adding Michael Badnarik and other major alternative candidates.
That's a strange comment. Real democracy is messy by nature! It is authoritarian systems that tend to be neat and orderly. Which ideal should we be going for in the American electoral process?
President Bush had a popular initiative called "No Child Left Behind." What we need now is a similar initiative called "No Voter Left Behind." The goal of "No Voter Left Behind" would be to make sure that every ballot-qualified candidate into the presidential polls, debates, and election coverage.
If you're going to see a candidate on the ballot, you should see that candidate in the polls, in the presidential debates, and in the media.
Dropping Nader from the poll in favor of an "Other" category was a move in the wrong direction. Let's bring back Nader, and also add Badnarik, Cobb, and Constitution Party candidate Michael Peroutka. Along with Bush and Kerry, these are the major national candidates.
A poll with six candidates is hardly "cluttered!" The "American Candidate" TV show on Showtime started out with many more candidates than that. What assumption is being made here -- that American voters are dumber than a TV audience, and too dumb to pick from among six different choices???
Michael Badnarik recently polled 5% in a Rasmussen poll of New Mexico voters. How can anyone justify excluding a candidate polling 5% in a battleground state from a place in the national dialogue?
Sincerely,
>>
San Francisco, CA
Posted by: Starchild at August 19, 2004 05:26 AM
Yes, Please add Badnarik to your poll. While Nader is dropping, Badnariks numbers are increasing in those polls which include him. He is likely to be the balance of power in several toss-up states. He will likely be on the ballot in 49 or 50 states. To be fair, I think you should include all third party candidates with a mathematical chance of winning the electoral college vote. Appearing in a poll is often the first way someone learns that thay have an alternative to the lesser of two evils.
Posted by: June Genis at August 19, 2004 10:59 AM
You can't have an accurate vote without including candidates that at least have a chance at winning an electoral vote. Badnarik will be on the ballot in at least 45 states(much more than nader) and the green party candidate will probably be on the ballot in more states than Ralph nader as well.
Reflect the will of the people not the media.
Include the third part candidates.
Stan Lee
Posted by: Stan Lee at August 19, 2004 08:41 PM
You bet. Even though I have my own ax to grind I think y'all will find that Badnarik is coming on *very* strong in a *lot* of States.
The voters *really* need to see another choice besides the same old higher taxes, bigger government old party candidates.
The next battle is to pressure the powers that be to let the most supported 3rd party candidates into the debates so that the voters can finally see some contrast.
Ron Cadby
Posted by: Ron Cadby at August 20, 2004 11:47 AM
Badnarik! Badnarik! Badnarik! Badnarik! Badnarik! Badnarik! Badnarik! Badnarik!
Please add him. :)
Posted by: Hil at August 21, 2004 12:22 AM
Without question anyone that is going to be on the ballot should be in polls. Give people real choice.
Posted by: Doug Sloan at August 23, 2004 11:54 AM
Absolutely, yes, Badnarik should be listed. Perhaps his voter rating would get better if the media gave him more exposure.
Posted by: Timothy Maguire at August 23, 2004 02:49 PM
Yes, include Michael Badnarik. He will be on the ballot in almost all states, certainly far more than Nadar. Here in Indiana, Bush is almost certain to win, but both my wife and myself will be voting for Badnarik. Nadar won't even be on the ballot since he couldn't even get half of the signatures required. However, the Libertarian Party has permanent ballot access. Far more people will be able to vote for Badnarik than will be able to vote for Nadar. So Badnarik is a far more viable candidate than Nadar. Even if Nadar won every state where he is on the ballot, he couldn't get a majority in the Electoral College. At least Badnarik has a chance. Are we wasting our vote voting for Badnarik? Here in Indiana it would be just as much of a wasted vote to vote for Kerry. Seen on a bumper sticker: "Trim the Bush. Flush the Johns."
Posted by: Larry at August 23, 2004 07:43 PM
Instead of asking should so-and-so be included, why aren't you adding every candidate that is on more than one state ballot? Or more than two state ballots, or . . ., but pick a rational and impartial criteria and add everyone that qualifies.
And on the topic of Badnarik, one of our guest columnists did an insiders look at the 2004 Libertarian Party Convention http://www.reasontofreedom.com/indexlpc.html , which your readers might find interesting.
M.J. Taylor
Editor and Admin
http://www.ReasonToFreedom.com/
Posted by: M.J. Taylor at August 24, 2004 10:02 PM
What good is any poll that doesn't offer all of the choices implied by the question? (Very little, IMO.)
Any presidential candidate nominated by a recognized political party should appear as a choice within a presidential poll -- this includes Badnarik, Cobb, and Peroutka, as well as Kerry and Bush. No valid poll should exclude valid candidates, regardless of how relatively [un]popular each seems at the time. Otherwise, your poll is already slanted and unfair, and its results questionable in value.
I'd argue that Nader should also be included within the poll simply because he's showing stronger presence in existing poll results than some of the party-nominated candidates, and thus is also a valid choice that people should know about.
If you don't think that these "third-party" guys don't have enough of a following to make a difference in the results, then include them in the poll and let the poll verify that. We're still only talking about, what, six or so candidates? I think most poll respondants can handle finding their favorite among six names.
On a related tangent...
This ridiculousness about there only being two "valid" candidates (Republican and Democrat) will only persist as long as everyone involved (pollsters, debate coordinators, media, etc.) refuses to present the various valid alternatives that do exist. How are people supposed to know that these other alternatives exist if no one ever talks about them?
Over time, any party or candidate might gather enough attention to become a "valid" possibility, even one of the "top two". It's happened before, it can happen again.
This happened for a previously-obscure party back in the 1850s, who went from third-party obscurity to finally edge out one of the "top two" parties, and put their own candidate into the White House. This upstart party called itself the Republican Party, and their first successful candidate was a guy named Abraham Lincoln.
Posted by: Tom Kiefer at August 26, 2004 02:26 PM
Badnarik
Cobb
Nader
Names that should be mentioned in the media, but rarely are.
They are a part of a movement to take back control of this country to the people. The corporations and the politicians that have the power and think that they "know better how to run our lives" need to step back!
Issues the 2 parties ignore or do little for:
-corporate power
-social security stability (or elimination)
-balanced federal budget (paying off national debt)
-health care as a human right
-eliminate government control over marriage
-starting foreign wars that do not affect our citizens apart from serving in them (read:pre-emptive war policies)
-environmental issues
-energy policies (read:foreign energy dependence - peak oil solutions)
3rd Parties push forward ideas and force the BIG TWO to adopt them and use them. Though if elected they would change our country's future dramatically. The BIG TWO only want those in control to maintain and grow in strength.
Posted by: Kevin Chavis at September 23, 2004 03:13 AM
NEVER HEARD OF HIM, FORGET IT. THIS ELECTION IS TO IMPORTANT TO WAIST OUR TIME WITH DISTRACTIONS. VOTE FOR PRESIDENT BUSH, WE HAVE TO WIN THE WAR ON TERROR. ONLY ISSUE THAT MATTERS. NO DISRESPECT TO MR.WHATS HIS NAME.
Posted by: BRUCE EICHENBERG at September 26, 2004 03:39 AM
Hey all,
Check this out.
http://www.beecy.net/frank/
Posted by: Robert at September 28, 2004 06:49 PM
Of course the American people need to hear from their 3rd party Candidates. The only reason they rate so low is due to the globalists controlling the media newspapers, radio, and television. Outside of Nader, has anyone even once heard about the Liberitarian , the constitution party Michael Peroutka, or anyother 3rd party Candidates. Do you all feel the people in America are too stupid to make up their own minds. If people fail to respond to who we want to hear from, we should ignore the Marxist agendas. Starting here
Posted by: wally mccormick at October 23, 2004 05:16 PM
The odds are against you no matter how wealthy you are. I need only to say two words to prove my point...
Ross Perot.
You can't even buy a decent election anymore.
Posted by: Dave at October 23, 2004 07:55 PM
Sorry, Michael, let's have another go four years from now, hey?
Posted by: Dave at November 3, 2004 04:22 PM
