Third Party & Independents: Archives

great post david. I have been milling over a post on this topic for a couple of weeks, but you said it very well. I am still struggling with my vote this november- the question is not just are we better off now than 4 years ago, but will who will make us better off in 4 years. I dont have confidence that either one of the two major party candidates will do good job, however. Maybe we should just write in Biden or McCain :)?

On my way back from a miserable Kerry rally today I overheard a woman on her phone, “It was great! I’m voting for this guy Jim Carrey.”

Me too.

Great post.

So David, if I’m a Democrat and I actually think Kerry is the best candidate, am I still a sheep?

While there are members of every party (including 3rd parties) who will vote “the party line” every time, I think the vast majority actually belong to a party because they believe the ideals and candidates of that party represent them best.

Your article sounds like 3rd party elitist musing to me. :)

Depends on why you think he is the best candidate, doesn’t it? I can say this, if you haven’t checked out or have no desire to look in on the Libertarian Convention coming up shortly or into Nader’s issues and reasons for running, you prove my argument, Lee.

How can one know if they are backing the best candidate if they have not looked at the others? Simple, political party loyalty - don’t think, research, compare - just believe in your life long party and save yourself a lot of time and effort. Ba-a-a-a-ah-ah!

David Remer, politicians are supposed to disagree, and they are supposed to settle those disagreements by vote. You may have seen a number at the bottom of your screen had you lingered on C-SPAN surfing your way up the channels.

It’s when politicians don’t disagree enough that I get worried. For example, we have one candidate that says “stay in Iraq” and another candidate that says “stay in Iraq”. How is that a ‘choice’ for us?

DaveO, I’ve heard similar slurs to Drew Carey, LOL. To me, Drew would be preferable to a Lurch clone who’d continue the Bush legacy via stealth and hypnosis of the left.

Back to Dave Remer, I think it’s when politics get overly personal that the big mistakes are made. So-called “acrimony” between ideas is supposed to be there, because if you don’t like wasteful death and destruction based on a lie, it’s unnecessarily conciliatory to get all warm and fuzzy with the contrary idea that it’s okay in the name of God and Apple Pie and the Flag. But the danger of the ad hominem trance the left is currently in, against Bush, is the notion in the back of their minds that if ONLY Bush would get replaced (by yet another aristocrat, ironically), everything will be just fine and they can all go back to their reality TV and their strawberry margaritas after a day of cube-slavery work. It’s numbing the electorate, making them forget the ideas that MAKE certain candidates unacceptable.

David-

The reason for the plesent exchange is Joe Biden. He is well respected by the GOP even though he is on the left because he doesn’t play the games. There are a few good politicians left in Washington I guess.

Maybe that’s why Strom Thrumond pre-selected Biden to represent the Senate at his funeral. Even Joe was surprised by that one.

Depends on why you think he is the best candidate, doesn’t it? I can say this, if you haven’t checked out or have no desire to look in on the Libertarian Convention coming up shortly or into Nader’s issues and reasons for running, you prove my argument, Lee.

Not necessarily.

Evaluation of who’s the “best candidate” should take into account the likelihood of that candidate ever getting elected, in my opinion.

We’re fairly stuck in this political situation - the two parties have long surpressed any chance of a third party rising.

David—

Outstanding post! My wife and I watched the program and question and I remember saying to my wife that while John McCain’s words seems genuine, his action spoke louder insofar as he refused to even consider to Vice-Presidential spot in an effort to help heal some of the rifts that so divide this nation. I think all too often the opposing sides forget that we are supposed to be American first and champions of our respective political parties second.

As to the boarder issue of the “sheep” factor, I could not agree with you more; the current debates swirling around many of the social issue vexing America today can be laid at the doorstep of sluggish thinking by Americans. And the almost pervasive misunderstanding of our system of governance and the part the constitution—state and federal—place in the legislation of our laws. Throw in a healthily—or unhealthy—dose of dogged individualism, determined selfishness, and self segregation, all thrown into a pot lacking in intellectual curiosity about anything meaningful, and you have a recipe for a failing, flailing democracy.

Ceejay, the way the two parties suppress the chances of a third party uprising is by a Borg mentality: resistance to the hegemony of the Double Headed Party is “futile”. The perception of this futility is sustained largely by cooperation between both factions of the One Official Party, in this way: if a third party candidate appears to lean even so much as a TAD to the “left”, then it’s the DNC’s job to attack him as a “spoiler” for the left. Hence, Ralph Nader is doomed to being pounded down by the likes of Kerry. Or so the DNC will proclaim. Similarly the right when it comes to a right-leaning independant candidate like Pat Buchanan, or, anyone remember Ross Perot? Pappy Bush will swear up and down that Perot stole uniquely “Republican” votes.

The Libertarian viability issue is slightly different because there you have a deadlock between a level of philosophical purity which can never be POPULAR enough to succeed, or a degree of pragmatic compromise which might render the “Libertarian” label irrelevant.

But make no mistake, the perception of third party futility is a false one, as proven by former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura. And during his administration he sustained attacks from both the right and the left, with relative magnanimity and a Navy SEAL’s shoulder-shrugging aplomb. His policies weren’t perfect and his character wasn’t perfect, but he was a pioneer in proving that yes, it CAN be done, and when the One Official Party says “pay no attention to that soft money behind the curtain”, with both of its factions, the best thing to do is go on the offensive, guns blazing in both directions.

Misha, one of the interesting twists to a third party candidate winning the Presidency, is that (s)he would be rendered almost totally impotent in office, by the two major parties in the Congress. They would do their best to ruin her/his presidency in order to afford themselves the opportunity to take the office back themselves in the following election.

For real change to take place, and for third parties to have a chance of representing potentially 1/3 to 1/2 of eligible voters, third party candidates must be elected to Congress in large numbers. Thus the hinge of my article to vote candidates, not parties. While such an action would not render a third party President, it could and likely would make significant inroads to Congress.

But, or course, the citizenry must seek out the information on third parties and objectively review it. A process that is going painstakingly slow for some of us.

Mr. Martin, DaveO, and Misha, thank you for the compliment on this article. It has been awhile since I put that much time into crafting one such as this, and it means a lot that it is well received by some.

George, I too have great respect for Biden, though, he and I disagree on some fundamental issues. He is a problem solver as much as he is a politician, and that earns my respect everytime.

Ciggy, excellent observation on one of the many ways the two party system blockades third parties. I like the Borg allusion.

CeeJayOz, I agree, winning potential is a part of the evaluation for choosing a candidate. However, if everyone waits for a sure pick, hell will freeze over before anything changes.

Hey David, well written article. But I still have a problem with being called a sheep even though I actually have checked out Nader as a candidate. That’s what makes your article sound elitist and condescending; as if only 3rd party members actually understand what they’re voting for.

I’d love to see a viable 3rd party presidential candidate. I was pretty excited about Perot in 92, till he dropped out.

Ciggy, I think Perot’s impressive first run and your example of Ventura disproves your view of the two party system as Borg. People will vote for a good 3rd party candidate when one emerges.

I’m constantly checking out alternative candidates. I believe a lot more people than you guys seem to think are doing the same. It’s just hard for me to vote for a warlock for Senator (I love California!).

While I think Nader was a good consumer activist, I think he’s a weak politician. Show me a good 3rd party candidate, then we’ll talk. But understand, my ideal candidate will tend to quack like a Democrat: fiscally conservative, socially progressive.

one of the interesting twists to a third party candidate winning the Presidency, is that (s)he would be rendered almost totally impotent in office, by the two major parties in the Congress.

I’m not sure how true that is. It assumes that Dems and Reps will shoot themselves in the foot just to keep a 3rd party president from being successful.

Some of them might, especially the Reps who are routinely smacked down if caught talking to a Dem, but I think most will work with a 3rd party president as long as their issues coincide.

It’s a pretty cynical to paint all politicians as that intensely partisan. And if you truly believe your representatives are behaving that way, have you asked them to stop? When was the last time you wrote your representatives, or set up a meeting with them or their aids to discuss your concerns?

I think everyone needs to realize that these guys aren’t really that far apart in ideology. That’s my impression. Biden, a conservative Dem, McCain, a liberal Republican. Maybe if they could get past their party loyalties they could create a Radical Middle alliance in congress.

Lee, I laid down a definition for “sheep”. Do you fit that definition? It would appear not. Sheep follow a party rather than assess and compare candidates on issues of concern to them and choose based on that assessment rather according to party affiliation.

Of course, I have not seen your feet so I cannot know if the shoe fits, that is for each person to determine for themself.

Read carefully. My definition does NOT say that a person who votes with their party along party lines is necessarily a sheep. Their assessment and comparison of candidates and their issues - values, may lead to a rational and deliberative decision to vote down a party line. No one but oneself can determine if they are being honest with themself on this issue or not.

Lee, it appears to me a bit uninformed or naieve to suggest the current Democratic Senate or past out party Congressional rep’s have not attempted to sabotage an opponent party’s President by blocking their proposals, hanging their programs in Committee rooms, or filibustering as a method of both preventing the President’s agenda from taking place as well as making the President appear ineffective.

Lee, I don’t think we disagree as much as you think. I said “Borg MENTALITY” on the part of the double-headed binary One Official Party in America. I didn’t say that that attitude, on the part of the One Official Party, was correct. I do agree that third party candidates can win, when they provide a true alternative and an appealing character.

David Remer, Committees and Filibusters are a part of the political process as outlined by America’s Constitution. Checks and balances are not only between branches of government, but within the legislative branch a minority party can put some serious roadblocks up to what the majority party wants to do. That power is there to PREVENT the passage of an excessive number of partisan agenda items, and to basically require greater negotiation and consensus among all parties involved. It’s never just “a Republican Congress” or “a Democrat Congress”, because it’s always both, just leaning slightly one way or the other.

If a third party candidate is in that milieu of the legislative branch, said politician could not promise a vast sweeping laundry list of reforms, but instead could promise to vote and manoeuvre and lobby in such a way as to be more favorable to that third party view on the various topics. Similarly so a third party president: no guarantee of a clean sweep of agenda items, but just a plan of attack for bills to introduce, and bills to sign, and bills to veto. We would still have the binary partisan “wingers” of both sides to contend with, no matter what.

David, I hate to agree with Ciggy (Again! We’re starting to sound way too chummy), but he put it way better than I did. My horoscope told me I would be impatient with people who don’t see what I believe is totally obvious. I could have explained my position better. :)

I think a 3rd party president could further his/her party platform where it coincides, or even doesn’t conflict, with either of the other parties. It would be a little more like other countries with more than two parties. Ad hoc coalitions would be formed and dissolved on an issue by issue basis. But Ciggy is right, it would be unrealistic (undesirable, even?) to expect that the 3rd party agenda would emerge uncompromised.

The reason this country went off the cliff so quickly in the last four years is because my party’s leadership was sorely lacking. We sucked as a loyal opposition party. We’re getting better.

As for my feet, they’re nothing special. :)

That just seemed like a cheap shot at a large number of people who belong to one of the two major parties for reasons you apparently don’t think are valid.

I understand the need for alternative parties to proselytize, but calling potential converts sheep is just going to get our backs up. Much better to present us with a candidate we can believe in. Nader doesn’t fit the bill for me. Who else you got?

The usual suspects apart from Nader: Harry Browne; possibly Pat Buchanan (going by his new set of anti-Bush polemics from a conservative viewpoint).

It’s not going to be a good election year for Third Party candidates, obviously, but I think the work ahead for the new few election cycles is mainly going to be presenting a respectful yet sharp criticism of the two-party system, finding good viable candidates, and getting some of the same groundwork done that, say, Ross Perot started.

By 2012, if the Mayan Calendar’s prediction of worldwide catastrophe fails to wipe us out, we could be poised for some significant inroads to the Legislative branch, if not the Presidency.

Thanks for the names. I’d never heard of Harry Browne before. I think my biggest problem with both of them is their desire for us to retreat from international diplomacy.

I have to laugh about Buchanan. I’ll listen to him on TV or the radio sometimes and start thinking, “Wow, this guy is really making sense!” Then he’ll say something about not being descended from a monkey, or we should retreat behind our traditional walls of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and it just gives me the willies. :)

Like I said, my ideal 3rd party candidate would sound an awful lot like a Democrat. But keep ‘em coming, I’m shopping for a replacement for Senator Feinstein and I doubt the party will run one.

Lee, in his farewell speech, George Washington left a stern and dire warning against “entangling alliances” in the international world, that if pursued, they would prove to be the downfall of the Republic. While that might be an oversimplification of our global strategic problems at the moment, the spirit of what he said still holds: America is always much better off when America minds America’s own business. Retaliate when attacked? ABSOLUTELY. But this whole notion of meddling in other people’s affairs has got to stop.

“Isolationist” is a pejorative and it shouldn’t be. It doesn’t mean we don’t trade with other countries, or negotiate at the U.N. for certain treaty objectives, but in spite of our image of our own wealth, we do not have enough of it to lord it over the entire world like Bush is trying to do.

Ciggy, I agree. No meddling. Unless it helps US-based multinational corporations, or is in our national interest, or we are the only country with the resources to quickly provide humanitarian aid where needed. :)

Things would be simpler if we could make a clear distinction between us and them, but people are messy. People create webs and tenticles of personal, religious, and business relationships that transcend national boundaries. Politicians are people. The President is a person. Other national leaders are people. Messy, messy, messy.

But I like it that way. Ideas cross pollinate; markets open up; old ideas become new; projects gain global scope. All the stuff that sounds goofy, but is really cool when you’re a part of it. It’s a rollercoaster. But I like the rollercoaster. :)

You’re right that lording it over the world is bad. But Buchanan’s (and even Bush’s) brand of isloationism is too extreme for me.

Lee and Ciggy, been following your thread with interest. Good discussion and important concepts about the future. But, you both seem to be skirting THE 2 most devastating statistical certainties overshadowing all other factors regarding our future.

1) World population. While I will grant that nature is trying her best to control our breeding numbers with AIDs, Malaria, Dyssentary from polluted water, and malnutrition (mostly due to our poor economic model for food distribution), we are politically pressing for ever greater consumer populations and large minority segments of our race’s people want to enhance propagation of the species by making abortion illegal, by NOT making contraception ‘freely’ available, and by fostering societal financial structures which reward propagation. How can the U.S. stem this trend with a Pres. who fears the Guff will become empty?

2) The U.S. cannot and will not remain the economic superpower. The shear numbers of productive workers in the EU and China will outpace our productivity in this century. Shouldn’t we be looking at healthy and prosperous non-economic superpowers for models to follow and begin preparations for this huge transition now?

It won’t do the discussion much good to deny what think tanks, and our government officials already know which I have stated above. But, if you think these trends are refuteable, let’s assume for the sake of discussion, they are inevitable without radical behavioral change by the U.S. and other nations around the world. What would you propose to stem these trends?

I bring this up, because Nader is facing these facts and perhaps, he will open Kerry’s eyes to these overarching problems that will make terrorism and economic decline for America inevitable.

Lee said, “I think a 3rd party president could further his/her party platform where it coincides, or even doesn’t conflict, with either of the other parties.”

Lee, this statement simply refuses to acknowledge the power of a third party candidate like Nader over the major party. Nader can, if he chooses, prevent a Democrat from winning. So can the Green Party in local races ever more frequently. With that kind of power, you seem to suggest that 3rd parties roll over and play nice with the majors in hopes of getting a crumb or two? I don’t think that dynamic is in the human political nature.

Kerry is reaching out to Nader, because Kerry recognizes the power that Nader holds in his hand. This is precisely how third party agendas will be furthered - threat of use of their power to drain votes from the major party that won’t make concessions. That after all, is heart of politics.

Wow David. If correct (I don’t think it is), that assessment of Kerry’s meeting with Nader and the subsequent strategy you’re ascribing to Nader make me that much more determined to not even consider him as a candidate.

I understand that 3rd partisans are frustrated by the slow growth of their parties, but a grandstand play like political hostage taking (if that’s even possible - currently, I’m predicting a landslide for Kerry) isn’t going to endear you guys to anyone.

What you describe may be the “heart of politics”, but it’s not the soul. I’d prefer my potential 3rd party candidate to win on ideals and vision tempered with common sense, rather than power-grabbing Machiavellian schemes.

That type of politics is getting a little stale for me. That’s why I like Kerry’s plans for total energy independence and universally accessible health care.

BTW, the trick with the multiple posts is: when you get the error page after posting, go back. Your text should still be in the edit box. Then press the ‘Preview’ button. That seems to post the comment without the copies. :)

Lee, Bush is an isolationist? Egads, when did THAT happen? When is the pull-out scheduled?

David, I understand the world population problem, and particularly how that affects our economy (as mushrooming populations clamor for OUR jobs), but I don’t see any ethical way we can address that problem OTHER than simply provide information to families around the world about how not to be impoverished wage-slaves. If Mother Nature won’t curb that population, I for one am not in favor of doing that work with a machine gun or a viral strain.

To your second point, yes, and what those non-superpowers are doing is NOT meddling overmuch outside their own borders.

American Pundit, you have two contradictory premises: one, that alternative parties can’t generate support, and the other, that alternative parties drain too much support from the “one of the two” factions of the ONE official party. Which is it?

Thanks, BTW, for the workaround trick to the 500 error page. I’ll try it next time, if I remember it.

Ciggy, population - how about lowering the cost of prophylaxis overseas? How about using diplomatic and economic ties as a bargaining tool to nudge other nations toward policies that encourage population reduction? Cm’on, a little imagination could go a long way.

Nader is not a candidate by conventional definition. He does NOT want to be President. If that is a problem for you, then you are certainly correct in not voting for him. But, if that is reason, you would appear to fail to grasp the importance and value of his campaign to benefit all Americans and voters in this country - except those conservative democrats and republicans who don’t want anything about the electoral process to change or become more open to all citizens and qualified third parties.

Ciggy said, ” Kerry’s plans for total energy independence and universally accessible health care. ” God love democrats, they fall for utopia everytime. ‘Total Energy Independence’ - right, like Kerry is going to bring that about. ‘Universal Health Care’ - A universe of free health care for all. Right!

We need real world solutions to real world problems, Ciggy. Not pie in the sky idealism on the right or the left. Real answers is what Nader stands for and promotes.

‘Total Energy Independence’ - right, like Kerry is going to bring that about. ‘Universal Health Care’ - A universe of free health care for all. Right!

Kerry is pretty committed to energy independence. It’s been a part of his campaign from the start, and with gas prices so high, I think he could get enough public support to push it through Congress.

And no one said anything about free health care. That would be stupid.

David, you usually seem pretty reasonable. Have fun voting for a candidate that doesn’t even want to get elected.

Lee, Bush is an isolationist? Egads, when did THAT happen?

Haha! I was thinking about international agreements, but good point. :)

Seriously though, given his reluctence to intervene in Liberia and Haiti, and even his reluctance to follow through in Afghanistan, I think Iraq was and aberration for Bush. Just some of Cheney and Rumsfeld’s unfinished business.

American Pundit, there is little doubt in my mind that Kerry will do what he thinks he can to create a more fossil fuel independent America. The real question however, is what does he think he can do with huge lobbyist interest groups breathing down his campaign for a second term. Unless Kerry is willing to commit heart and soul to ending corporate lobbying in Washington, methinks there is little he would actually do in office about it.

“Free” health care was only a half joke. Universal Health Care would in fact, be free for millions of Americans with tax payers picking up their bill. I would not have a particular problem with that if Kerry would commit heart and soul to policies that would greatly reduce gross and gratutious profiteering off of fellow Americans disabilities, pain, suffering, and illnesses. Again, would Kerry take on the Goliaths who would threaten his reelection if he tried to cut into their yacht maintenance or Hum V’s needed so desperately for shopping on Rodeo Drive?

These are tough questions which will not be posed in the upcoming debates because Kerry backs the FEC and Commission for Presidential Debates which insures such tough questions will never be answered for the voting public.

How is that for a rational and reasonable reply. Rational and reasonable replies are so much harder to compose. You caught me in sleepy and unmotivated state in my previous reply.

David,
“how about lowering the cost of prophylaxis overseas?”

What?

“How about using diplomatic and economic ties as a bargaining tool to nudge other nations toward policies that encourage population reduction?”

Then we’ll get Pol Pot’s new clone wanting a reward for mass graves. But if you offer increased aid to Latin America for legalizing abortion, they’ll just politely decline. You may think it’s “imaginative” to make the offer but it’s really just like talking to a wall.

I don’t have a problem with Nader’s candidacy, although my preferred ideological mix would be “mostly libertarian but socialize three key industries”. That’s a hard sell just about anywhere you look, and I might just have to be a political party of one. I’m okay with that, too.

“God love democrats, they fall for utopia everytime”

This passes as a reasonable rebuttal to an actual plan for improving energy and health care? So “I’ll jawbone OPEC” and “health care to the highest bidder” are what, ‘pragmatic’?

AP:
“given his reluctence to intervene in Liberia and Haiti, and even his reluctance to follow through in Afghanistan, I think Iraq was and aberration for Bush”

Sans the aberration, I’d probably be in line with that ‘isolationism’ then, on Bush’s part. We should not be Wyatt Earp, even it it’s only in one place (and it’s even worse if it’s only in one place—shows us to be hypocrites). I don’t want us to be global cop, global fireman, global ANYTHING unless we collect global taxes, and fat chance of that happening.

Cool the 500 error workaround worked, LOL.

Ciggy, your response makes no sense to mine, since you did not look up the word prophylaxis. Prophylaxis simply means preventable means. In other words, condoms, Birth Control pills, overnight pills, IUD’s, anti-spermal gells and diaphragms, etc. Overpopulation in the world is the single largest threat to our past quality of life, in the future. It would behoove us to give prophylactic technology to other nations gratis. It would have huge returns on investment dollar for centuries out. But, no, that won’t be a part of the debates, TOO DAMN CONTROVERSIAL!

We need a president who will lead with what works and returns the largest gains on our monetary, cultural, historical, natural, and political investments. I could actually convince myself to vote for Kerry if he would announce Nader would be a key advisor or hold an inner circle cabinet position. Because Nader is all about solutions that work with the greatest return on American investment regardless of what area that investment is made.

The American people will follow such a leader if his controversial policies work and return more than we put into them. We followed Bush into Iraq, that was controversial. But, the return on our investment in invading Iraq is a big fat deficit in every area of investment for at least the next decade.

Unless Kerry is willing to commit heart and soul to ending corporate lobbying in Washington, methinks there is little he would actually do in office about it.

People said the same thing about Clinton and tobacco companies, David.

Energy independence is now a critical national security issue. Bush’s plan is to invest in more US oil drilling in foreign countries. Kerry’s plan is to become independent of foreign oil. Those are the only two plans on the table. I know which one I want.

Rational and reasonable replies are so much harder to compose. You caught me in sleepy and unmotivated state in my previous reply.

Haha! No problem. Listen David, I’d love to see the system opened up to 3rd parties. Let me know what I can do to help, other than waste a vote on Nader. :)

David,
“since you did not look up the word prophylaxis”

The dictionary explanations of the word still left your phrase vague to me. You see, you were talking about preventing population growth, and if you PREVENT disease, how’s that going to do any other than accelerate that growth?

Couched in terms of birth control, news flash, we’re TRYING that, and it’s not working, obviously. The Turd World’s religious fundamentalism (both Catholic and Islamic) will not hear of it. Every sperm is still sacred, to them.

American Pundit, I sent an email to the Texas DNC yesterday, telling them Kerry could have my vote if Kerry would commit to placing Nader on his inner circle advisory staff or a Cabinet position.

That is one thing that can be done. I also sent Nader a contribution to assist his efforts in pressuring reform of the DNC. That is another.

American Pundit, Kerry’s plan for energy independence is hollow until he outlines how he is going to get the price of alternative energy sources and production below that of fossil fuels. That afterall, is the crux of the problem, wouldn’t you agree. That is also the political sticking point. So how does Kerry address this real life issue? He doesn’t, so far.

Ciggy, Money talks. Make it profitable to cease overprocreating. There are a number of ways to accomplish that even in Catholic and Islamic societies. The problem is getting leadership to back such a plan. Impossible with a reformed alcoholic born again fundamentalist Christian as President who sees overpopulation NOT as a threat, but, as Potential Consumers for American companies.

So how does Kerry address this real life issue? He doesn’t, so far.

Actually David, he does. Kerry is proposing an initiative to commercialize hydrogen powered vehicles. He likens it to a Manhatten Project type program; a massive, job creating, public/private sector initiative. The creation of the infrastructure will also be a massive undertaking. Interestingly, Schwarzenegger has already broken ground on a string of hydrogen stations along major California highways.

Kerry plans on funding it by retargeting the money Republicans have earmarked for corporate welfare in their energy bill.

Not only does our national security rest on control of our energy supplies, but OPEC countries are pumping at full capacity right now. How long until consuption actually outpaces capacity? Bush’s plan is to invest more US taxpayer dollars in foreign drilling. Kerry’s plan is to spend the money here to become independent of foreign oil.

Kerry has been talking about this all week, though the press offers little in the way of coverage.

David,
“Kerry’s plan for energy independence is hollow until he outlines how he is going to get the price of alternative energy sources and production below that of fossil fuels.”

Exponential increases of world energy demand will raise the cost of fossil fuels to above what it currently is for alternative fuels like biodiesel.

Sometimes the free market just plain works.

Republicans are put in the ticklish situation of being anti-free-market here because many of their most moneyed interest backers are the very ones who profit the most from oil-addicted energy policy, and will probably go to the lengths of government interference AGAINST alternatives which might endanger the wealth of their benefactors. But if left alone, a free market will peel us away from the dead dinosaurs, as with a gravitational force.

David, if money always talked everyone’s language, we could simply buy the terrorists away from their agenda, could we not? But we can’t. Money talks only if people choose to “listen” to it.

And it already IS profitable to cease overprocreating—at the family level. There is an inherent economic disincentive to breed like rabbits, and yet Catholic and Muslim misanthropes continue to do so anyway. Reality will not dissuade them from their task of making the entire planet one big overcrowded cage of humanity. If nothing else, one can admire their tenacity and self-sacrifice in adhering to insane agendas.

Bush could change his mind overnight and decide “gee, overpopulation IS bad after all”, and he’d still be powerless to change the minds of those who persist in the backward way of things.

Ciggy, I agree that we can sit back and wait for fossil fuel supplies to drop to the point that price exceeds other very high price alternatives. But, that is a child’s passive approach. Why don’t we take responsibility for our dependence now, like adults, and put federal money into the R&D, and change the laws to protect that R&D for the people’s investment, and develop LOW COST energy alternatives today. It is obscene the way we run our country on a reactive crisis basis, instead of with rational deliberative planning and preparation.

Don’t agree with your blanket statement, Ciggy, that money doesn’t talk. On some issues based on religious or moral values, I agree with you, but, on issues of family planning it just doesn’t wash. What parents would not choose fewer children in exchange for increasing the quality of life for themselves and the children they do have? If you have children you know that is true. If you don’t, well, simply put yourself honestly in a parent’s shoes.

There is a huge amount of study and research on what drives large families in India, Africa, and other agricultural or poor wage countries. There are traditions in those countries that economically support large families. Just as agricultural America in the 19th century economically promoted large numbers of children. My father was raised on a farm with 10 siblings. I was raised with 7 siblings. My wife and I have only one child with no plans for anymore. Economics more than any other factor determines nuclear family size.

American Pundit, thank you for the link, and I am impressed that Kerry is willing to take such a rational and deliberative approach to energy in a timely fashion. Thanks again for the heads up. I love learning new stuff like this at WB. My respect for Kerry just went up a notch.

Since this plan has been in Nader’s pouch for decades, I am pleased to see a Democratic Candidate embrace some third party common sense.