Third Party & Independents Archives

Open Letter to John McCain

Every few days I get yet another mailing begging me for money for your campaign. There is always explicit language about my being one of your supporters. But I do not support you for president. Your claim that I do is pure fraud.

You are an abomination, because of your support for President George W. Bush and his unjustified, immoral and illegal Iraq war. Everyone who sees a McCain presidency as a continuation of the Bush administration is totally correct.

Apparently I receive all of your solicitations and phone calls because years ago I contributed a small amount when you were running in the primary against George W. Bush. As an independent, back then I saw you as someone with integrity and honesty. That is no longer true.

Your unabashed support for Bush’s war and your public actions showing admiration for him are an insult to your military and public service career.

It is not, as you assert, that the presidential race “will be won on experience, issues and ideas, because that is what separates me from my Democrat opponents.” What really separates you from the Democratic opponents is you embarrassing, disgraceful and disgusting support of Bush and the Iraq war. You are nothing but a warmonger. You have no valid basis for being president.

Any why are so many lobbyists working for your campaign if you truly are against corporate corruption and the high costs of so much lobbying? It seems that you whole straight-talk pitch has been a clever but deceitful lie.

So stop asking me to “renew” my commitment. I never have made any commitment whatsoever to your current run for the presidency. And I deeply hope that the vast majority of Americans will reject a McBush presidency.

By the way, for every mailing I receive I take all the contents, place them in the postage-paid envelope and send them back to you, so that your campaign loses a little more money.

So perhaps you should keep sending me solicitations so that you waste more money. I especially enjoyed tearing that big photo of you and your wife into little pieces and returning them to you.

You ended your last letter to me with “Please let me hear from you soon.” Consider this my response. And for god sake, stop saying “Joel, you are part of my winning team.” Get the money you want from the idiots that support the Iraq war and think that wasting the lives of thousands of Americans has been justified or ever will be.

Posted by Joel S. Hirschhorn at March 24, 2008 3:33 PM
Comment #249020


I can’t wait for the instalments for the other major candidates, especially given that undecided superdelegates are the most important consitituency in America these days. What could be better or more cynical than a lobbyist? One of 700 or so unfettered and unelected (well, to this purpose at least) powerbrokers.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 24, 2008 3:51 PM
Comment #249021

Can I suggest an article complaining about other pieces of spam as well? I’m not sure what this one is expected to do other than make it clear to others that Joel doesn’t like McCain, if we couldn’t figure that out before. And in not so subtle terms either, in an era where the Democrats want us not to be divisive. Right.

Posted by: jeremy at March 24, 2008 3:57 PM
Comment #249026

McCain has a good chance of defeating whichever candidate comes out of the current Democratic mud fight.

But it is interesting to see how he is being characterized. On the left, we hear it would be a third Bush term if he is elected. On the right, we hear that he is too much like a Democrat because he so often opposed Bush. Ann Coulter said that she will not vote for John McCain. I doubt that George Soros or the guys will either.

The way that I see it is that if the extremists on the left and the extremists on the right are united in their suspicion of John McCain, perhaps us moderates who stand between these two might have found a candidate how can bridge the partisan gap.

Joel et al third party guys

BTW - It seems to me that the third part section of this blog is turning a shade of blue. I assume there is a third party you all are backing, but I never hear anything about that. Which third party candidates are the third party bloggers backing?

Posted by: Jack at March 24, 2008 5:17 PM
Comment #249038

I thought the Independants here were all Ron Paul Libertarians, but maybe it’s just the noisy ones. McCain is actually a fairly strong candidate for the Rpblcns. 2 years ago, I was saying that the Rpblcns would never nominate him, because he was the Democrats idea of a Rpblcn candidate. Now he has gotten himself into the 100 years war game in a way that frightens many people. In actuality, with his experience, he probably has a better chance than Obama of bringing the war to a conclusion sooner, but the issue of permanent bases will still remain.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 24, 2008 6:21 PM
Comment #249040

I didn’t realize there were any Ron Paul libertarians writing here myself, I must have missed something…

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 24, 2008 6:41 PM
Comment #249041

Joel, Don’t mince words. Tell us what you really think! : )

Joel wrote: By the way, for every mailing I receive I take all the contents, place them in the postage-paid envelope and send them back to you, so that your campaign loses a little more money.
Good idea.
Jack wrote: I assume there is a third party you all are backing, but I never hear anything about that.
A party is not necessary.

That’s the nice thing about being independent.
You can choose without being swayed by party loyalties.
You don’t have to constantly twist yourself into a pretzel to rationalize or explain the party position.

Some main party loyalists don’t like that do they?

The fact is, independent voters (growing in number as more voters become increasingly disillusioned by the two-party duopoly) actually decide many elections.

That upsets many two-party loyalists. Why?
Many Democrats hated Nader.
Many Republicans hated Perot.

Why does the loser from the two-party duopoly always blame the third party candidate for their loss?
Why not blame the winner?
Why not blame the voters?
Why not blame themselves for the loss?

Most main party loyalists pull the party lever (because it is easy; researching the candidates is work; pulling the party-lever is easy).

Some independents actually consider the candidates, and may vote for a candidate, regardless of party.

But, this election won’t be easy, because the choices are so bad.
That is why voters should not forget about Congress.
But sadly, most voters are likely (as usual) to focus only on the presidential office, and ignore Congress; essentially sabotaging their next president by saddling the president with the same, irresponsible, corrupt, dysfunctional, do-nothing Congress.

But, at least independent voters have reasons other than main-party loyalty for voting. Pulling the party-lever is why incumbent politicians in Congress enjoy 93%-to-99% re-election rates, and why the nation’s pressing problems continue to get worse; not better.

At any rate, the voters will have the government that they elect. If they like dysfunctional government, continue to repeatedly pull the party-lever, and the only thing that will change is the misery index (as these 10 abuses continue to take their toll).

By the way, the turn out of the Republicans has been small.
I’ll still be amazed if John McCain can win, when he has alienated much of his base, admits to being weak in economics, and wants to stay in Iraq for who-knows-how-long (when most Americans think we should start leaving Iraq)?

Posted by: d.a.n at March 24, 2008 6:46 PM
Comment #249061

I recently wrote an article on junk mail in general at:

I look forward to voting for Nader and other independents that may be running for other offices.

Anyone who writes of McCain is making a serious mistake. He will continue to con millions of Americans.

Posted by: Joel S. Hirschhorn at March 24, 2008 9:26 PM
Comment #249072

After all his time in the Senate, McCain doesn’t know the first thing about the economy. And amazingly, he obviously doesn’t know the difference between the Sunni and the Shiites. He simply isn’t smart enough to be the president of the United States.

We’ve had one Dummy in Chief, and look at where we are! We certainly can’t afford McSame, now.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 24, 2008 10:23 PM
Comment #249076

If political contributions were taxed, instead of tax deductible, the politicians wouldn’t be able to waste so much money buying airtime from the media conglomerates that they are supposed to regulate in the public interest. Historically, bribes or contributions to officeholders, are recouped at a rate of 4 to 5 times of the bribe (contribution). Politicians are not charities. If you want to give money to someone, give it to a real charity that does some good, like this one where I contribute:

Posted by: ohrealy at March 24, 2008 11:09 PM
Comment #249096


Already with the personal attacks?

Do you think Clinton is too dishonest to be president because of her recent misspeaking re the Balkans or N. Ireland?

Is Obama to weak to be president because he cannot distance himself from hateful guys like Wright or crooks in Chicago?

McCain is obviously an intelligent person, as are Obama and Clinton. You can attack the ideas w/o attacking the man, at least at this point.

Posted by: Jack at March 25, 2008 1:44 AM
Comment #249100


Already with the personal attacks?

I gave links to what McCain has said himself. So, they aren’t personal attacks. They’re statements of fact.

Do you think Clinton is too dishonest to be president because of her recent misspeaking re the Balkans or N. Ireland?

Yes. I think Clinton is dishonest and that she didn’t misspeak, but instead exaggerated on purpose to bolster the “experience” meme she’s been trying so hard to sell.

Is Obama to weak to be president because he cannot distance himself from hateful guys like Wright

No. I’m really happy that Obama could adamantly disagree with Wright, yet not turn his back on a man he has known and loved for twenty years merely over a few rash comments spoken up on the pulpit. I think that showed a real strength of character, as did the entirety of his speech in Philadelphia — the city of brotherly love.

or crooks in Chicago?

Obama has not been implicated in Rezko’s crimes. To be perfectly honest though, I’m never surprised when it turns out that politicians are rubbing elbows with crooks just like Rezko though. It seems that politicians on both sides of the aisle can’t ever manage to avoid this kind of scum, because there are so many of them, and because the enormous amount of money needed to mount political campaigns seems to constantly bring these kind of people out of the woodwork.
If we truly want to get rid of this, Americans need to demand strict reforms, and publicly financed political campaigns.

McCain is obviously an intelligent person,

In some ways I’m sure he is, but it seems to me that he isn’t intelligent enough in certain key ways to become the president — at least, not at this time in our history. We’ve presently got big trouble and issues that are looming like storm clouds on the horizon ahead. That means we need a president who is super sharp, good at handling many details at once, and who won’t be confused when faced with such important issues.
McCain is showing signs of being too far past his prime to qualify in those ways in the minds of many people.

You can attack the ideas w/o attacking the man, at least at this point.

Don’t blow this all out of proportion, Jack. I have only been addressing what seems obvious about McCain’s obvious shortcomings and what was displayed in his recent and repeated gaffes. These are exactly the kinds of things that Americans must talk about and consider carefully when choosing the next president.
Last two elections we actually had folks voting for Bush because they liked his cowboy and flight suit get-ups, and thought he’d be tons of fun to have a beer with — and unfortunately for us all, it shows.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at March 25, 2008 2:56 AM
Comment #249101

“perhaps us moderates who stand between these two might have found a candidate how can bridge the partisan gap.”


I didn’t know you moved over to the center aisle with me?

“It seems to me that the third part section of this blog is turning a shade of blue.”

Not much of a moderate statement, we are willing to vote for any party. Also I may point our, while you are critiquing the third party bloggers, you managed to write 4 straight blogs prior to your last dedicated to the smearing of Barack Obama. Not very centrist of you.

Posted by: Cube at March 25, 2008 3:06 AM
Comment #249102


Yeah, Jack is a centrist. And if you believe that, I’ve got some nice oceanfront property in Montana to sell you, real cheap. :-)

In all seriousness, most conservatives truly believe that they are centrists, because they think that they and only they represent the beliefs of “average Americans”. In order to cement this belief in their minds, they paint anyone to the left of center as the “MoveOn crowd” or “the extreme wing of the Democrat Party” (yes, I deliberately left off the “ic”). You really want to crack open the mind of the Right and see what’s inside, take a read of “Don’t Think of an Elephant” by George Lakoff. Strips bare all the sordid wordplay of the Right.


Posted by: leatherankh at March 25, 2008 7:13 AM
Comment #249115

I agree with Jack about the cant of the center column and suggest changing the color of the banner from Forest Green to Cyan.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 25, 2008 10:39 AM
Comment #249136

leatherankh, Democrat should be used as a noun, Democratic is the adjective. Rpblcn is both.

McCain has done pretty well without massive fundraising so far, but will the media treat him like a third party candidate, if he’s not buying enough ads from them? If the Democratic candidate is defeated after massive campaign fundraising, can we all at least agree that this was a phenomenal waste of money?

The audacity of hype has definitely penetrated into the minds of some of those who are looking for something “new and improved”, but will there be a “money back guarantee” if the candidate doesn’t do what is promised.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 25, 2008 1:19 PM
Comment #249140
Lee Jamison wrote: I agree with Jack about the cant of the center column and suggest changing the color of the banner from Forest Green to Cyan.
Did the Independents change, or did the Right simply move farther right?

That might be why so many Republicans have left the Republican party?

I can’t even count how many life-long Republicans I know that have left the Republican party.

And the last election proves it, since the Republican party lost 29 seats in the House and 6 seats in the Senate, and the next election will probably see the numbers of Republicans drop a LOT more.
Especially when 86% of Americans believe we should start bringing home the troops, and McCain wants to stay in Iraq for who knows how long (5, 10, 20, 50, 100 years?).
Also, McCain has alienated many in the base party.
His voting record on illegal immigration is pathetic (right down there with Hillary’s and Obama’s;
However, John McCain voted for the first amnesty in 1986, which contained some of the same requirements as in the last shamnesty BILL, and those requirements were not enforced after 1986. McCain says he now “gets it”. It took 26 years for McCain to “get it”?

Unfortunately, giving the majority to Demcrats will probably only be a minor improvement, and the nation’s most pressing problems and these abuses will probably continue to go ignored.

35% of all Americans currently identify themselves as independents.
Roughly 22% of the electorate are registered as:

    independent, decline-to-state, unaffiliated, or enrolled in third parties.

The remainder live in states without partisan registration, but identify themselves as independents in polls.
In addition, substantial numbers of Republicans and Democrats, who register in a party in order to vote in primaries, also consider themselves to be independents.
What most independent voters mean by “independent” is that they aren’t party loyalists.
Many believe partisanship has degraded our democracy and that the Democrats and Republicans have become “special interests” unto themselves.
Many independents don’t like parties (of any kind).
Besides, the two-party duopoly and electoral system (unlike proportional voting systems) is un-democratic by effectively shutting out any other parties, and reducing the voters choices to only two choices.

Ideally, enough voters would realize that repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians (in BOTH) parties ain’t working, and would wisely oust as many of them as possible.

But, that ain’t likely either … not until things become more painful.

And we are on our way:

  • Savings rates are below a negative 0.5% (lowest rate since year 1933); negative since year 2005 (;

  • Home equities are below 50% (lowest level since year 1945).

  • The gap between the wealthiest 1% and the remaining 99% is 40% (up from 20% in 1976; the largest gap since year 1930 ;

  • 80% of Americans own only 17% of all wealth;

  • Federal debt ($22 Trillion, including the $9.4 Trillion National Debt and including the $12.8 Trillion borrowed and spent from Social Security; leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 million baby boomer bubble approaching), has never been larger in size and as a percentage of GDP ($22T / $13.9T = 158% which is higher than 116% after World War II;

  • Real median household incomes have been falling for 30+ years (since year 1978), when you also include the fact that there are more workers per household, more regressive taxation, and the disappearing 40-hour work-week (

  • The delinquency rate for all mortgages climbed to the highest levels in over 23 years (the highest levels since year 1985);

  • Illegal immigration is depressing wages, and costing tax payers net losses of an estimated $70 Billion to $338 per year, H-1B Visa and H-2B Visa abuses are displacing jobs, some law firms are teaching corporations how to avoid hiring qualified American citizens (, and politicians are despicably pitting Americans and illegal aliens against each other for profits and votes. WageStagnation + CheapLabor = BigProfits

  • While positive inflation has been with us for 62 years, the U.S. Dollar has been falling fast against all major international currencies since year 1999 ( ).

  • Nation-wide debt is $53 Trillion (381% of GDP, which has never been worse in size and as a percentage of GDP). Yet the ratio keeps growing larger every year, as it has for 62 years. How much longer can that last? How is it that most people that work, invent, design, build, create, service, and produce are all in debt to the banks receive interest on money created out of thin air (up to 90% of every Federal Reserve loan is new money)?

  • … more …

Veritas Vincit, Thanks for the two links (above).

It helps to confirm that John McCain is weak in economics, which is very strange for anyone that has been in Congress for 26 years (since 1982). It would be interesting to ask McCain, Hillary, and Obama:

    WHERE will the money will come from to pay the interest on the ever growing $53 Trillion of nation-wide debt, much less the money to reduce the principal on $53 Trillion of nation-wide debt (almost 4 times the $13.9 Trillion GDP!), when that money does not yet exist?

Posted by: d.a.n at March 25, 2008 1:45 PM
Comment #249142

Conservatives stayed essentially where they were when they elected Republicans (in ‘94) they thought to be idealists. What they got was politicians for whom the labels are a matter of convenience.

It’s like leaving Ford when you realized the product was really Willys and then being dismayed to find the Lexus label conceals a Willys.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 25, 2008 2:05 PM
Comment #249146

Something changed since the last election (7-Nov-2006), since the Republican party:

    lost 29 seats in the House
  • and lost 6 seats in the Senate.
… and the next election will probably see the numbers of Republicans in Congress drop a LOT more.

I still think McCain’s chances are not very good, since McCain has alienated so much of his base. A lot of Republican voters will probably be staying home this next election.

Posted by: d.a.n at March 25, 2008 2:45 PM
Comment #249170

Lee, What BS. The parties exist to elect from within their ranks. A political party is defined by what its elected politicians do or fail to do. There is nothing as succinctly logical as these two sentences above.

All attempts to define the GOP by its minority conservatives is like trying to define the Democratic Party by its Blue Dog minority.

It is as obvious, logically, as the trunk on elephant. A political party is what its elected officials do or fail to do in office.

Republicans are truly caught between a rock and a hard place. Even if the remote possibility of McCain becoming president happened, most Republicans would be as disappointed with him as they are with the Bush we have in office now. If he isn’t elected, and Democrats end up improving the future outlook somewhat, that Democratic success will force future GOP candidates to the left in order to compete with incumbent Democrats.

With Paulson on the airways painting doom and gloom as a result of the SS and Medicare on horizon (SS in trouble by 2040 and Medicare in deep trouble in less than 11 years), Republicans will have to compete going forward with Democrats on ways to save these benefits. Ending them for privatization will get Republicans nowhere politically going forward, in all liklihood.

It truly is a situation of being between the rock and the hard place. But, then, it was the GOP that elected the current crop of failures recently departed or about to leave office over the next 10 months. As I said, a Party is defined by its elected officials performance and actions. This definition of incompetence and failure attached to the GOP will wear for a very long time, a generation at least.

Which partly explains Obama’s popularity.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 25, 2008 8:05 PM
Comment #249197

Its true McCain was a decent candidate back when he seemed like a humanitarian and moderate who would work across party lines but as of late he appears to have gone off the deep end and radically changed his platform to satisfy other right-wing nuts ..

Posted by: John Miller at March 26, 2008 3:35 AM
Comment #249208


People choose to participate in a party based on the values the party claims. People who were Republicans of choice for that reason could easily be dismayed that politicians of no particular ideological stripe would choose the seemingly successful party label and then prove themselves to be melba toast demublicans.

I can assure you that the members of the Democratic Party’s left-leaning base care not a whit how conservative Harold Ford or Nick Lampson need to appear to be reelected, regardless of what party leaders may allow them to do for electability’s sake. Both Democrats (the base) and Republicans (the base) want a national discussion based on issues and not expediencies.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 26, 2008 9:44 AM
Comment #249529

Lee said: “People choose to participate in a party based on the values the party claims.”

Only partially right. Voters must choose to participate in a party based on the results and effects on the voters of the elected officials that party put in office, if they are to expect better results than what they have now.

And in part, that is what more and more voters are doing as evidenced by throwing the GOP out of Congressional majority control, and the growing defection of Democrats and Republicans from those parties to register as Independent voters.

Its changing, and that is good. Voters are changing, that is why Obama is likely to be our next President. He is for changing the status quo, and so are the majority of American voters.

Posted by: David R. Remer at March 30, 2008 7:14 AM
Comment #251458

My first posting on this site, blame it on Mr. McBush himself. Why cannot Americans remember Vietnam and the lies that were perpetrated, Gulf Of Tonkin Resolution, to enact that war? Iraq, (WMDs) is a parallel to extremes and we lost Vietnam as we are, we will and we should lose in Iraq. If we were to ever achieve a so called victory, aggression would be an acceptable ploy to be used by any aggressor nation who acts like the bully on the street. Who gave Americans the badge for righteousness over the world? Yes, we won every battle in Vietnam, like Iraq but we did lose the war. If you are old enough you should remember the helicopters evacuating the U.S. Embassy. Must add, McBush fought in that war yet he fails to remember the consequences. Yet today, Vietnam is a friend and McCain a war mongering has been. Go figure.

Posted by: Nelson Evans at April 25, 2008 8:03 PM
Post a comment