Tom Kovach
Election 2008: stand and deliver
It's time for a third-party president
By Tom Kovach
American voters are already becoming cynical about the 2008 presidential elections. In 2004, they voted for George W. Bush under three premises: 1) that he is a conservative, 2) that he is the head of a conservative party, and 3) that he has the security of our nation foremost in his plans. Instead, the American voter has learned that: 1) Bush continues to expand unconstitutional programs that are also favored by the Democrats, 2) government spending and power have grown under the Bush Republicans at a rate that at least equals the Democrats, and 3) Bush has proven not only feckless, but also reckless, when it comes to securing the borders of the United States. (He is in the process of sending an additional 25,000 troops to secure the borders of Iraq, while less than one-fourth of that many troops secure our own borders.) Given the facts, any voter that still thought of Bush and his Republican Party as conservatives in 2004 must surely have opened his eyes by now. Given that the major news media continue to tell the voters that there is a "two-party system" in this country, it becomes easy to see why those voters have become cynical. If both the Democrats and the Republicans have essentially the same goals — and, in many cases, now even the same methods — then what choice is there in the voting booth?
For the first time in a hundred years, the mood of the American voters is ripe for a real change in the political landscape. Conservative Democrats feel abandoned by their party once again (as they did when they voted for Ronald Reagan). Now, they are joined by conservative Republicans, who see no hope within a party that can only come up with flip-floppers such as Rudy Giuliani or John McCain as presidential candidates. There is a flicker of hope for conservative Republicans in the recent appearance of Fred Thompson as a possible presidential candidate. Thompson's positions on most issues are excellent, and his persona is pure Americana charm. But, during his tenure as a United States Senator, the likeable Thompson voted to expand NAFTA and to relax the immigration rules for foreign workers at a time when American jobs were declining. Given the mood of the American voters to secure our national borders and get rid of illegal aliens (now!), Thompson is likely to fizzle before long. Therefore, what choice do voters have? What candidate will support the traditional American values of laws based upon moral foundations, borders that are secure, and a robust economy that is based upon American ingenuity (and not the importation of "cheap" foreign labor)?
It is time for a president from something other than the Big Two political parties.
This coming Friday, 20 April 2007, the Constitution Party (the third-largest political party in America) will begin its Spring National Committee Meeting. The meeting will be held in Boise, Idaho. Under normal circumstances, mid-April of the year before a presidential election would be far too early to consider even looking at a list of possible nominees. But, the current political circumstances are nowhere near normal.
The United States has now been at war in Iraq longer than we were at war with Japan and Germany during World War Two. And, we have been at war in Afghanistan even longer than we've been in Iraq. Even as we continue to increase troop levels in those faraway countries, we have US Border Patrol agents in prison for stopping illegal aliens from entering our country. Even as the news media continues to tell our populace that our political "leaders" have declared the job market to be strong, all American car manufacturers have recently announced the layoffs of more than a hundred thousand workers each! Even as our president declares that the presence of National Guard troops along our borders will bring the security that we demand (and that our Constitution requires), the rules of engagement directed by that president put the troops on unarmed posts and compel them to retreat from confrontation with border-crossers. (Our troops are forced to choose between obeying their orders and obeying the Code of Conduct to which they swore an oath.) Even as politicians proclaim that the economy is strong, interest rates are rising because of loan defaults from American workers, whose jobs have been displaced by illegal aliens. And, politicians prevent the economy from regaining true strength, because they prevent American oil companies from drilling for oil beneath American land and territorial waters. At the same time, the threat of a dollar trade collapse — engineered by the Iranian Oil Bourse, combined with Chinese hording of strategic dollar reserves — is very real and growing daily.
Have you heard any of the existing presidential candidates address these key national issues?
Although it seems odd that so many people have already declared themselves as candidates for president, the dire circumstances above compel this writer to suggest that smaller parties should not wait until 2008 to seek their own candidates. Voters see the White House as currently in a leadership vacuum. The voters are looking for a leader that shows the type of vision and intellect that formed this country in the first place, that went toe-to-toe with Communism and won, that would take America to a better future by standing on the principles of our past. None of the current candidates fits that description. (There are two Republicans that come close, but the GOP is likely to undermine any chance they have of success.) The only way to elect a principled president is by making sure that such a candidate is neither a Democrat nor a Republican.
Here is what such a candidate should look like.
The type of president that we need would be a person of recognized intellect. We cannot afford a candidate that gives even the perception of being a lightweight in the brain department. The type of president that we need would be a person with at least some degree of existing name recognition. (Although the CP came up with a smart and principled team in 2004, and that team was successful enough to force the news media to put more than two lines on their charts, too much of the campaign energy was lost on just getting the voters to know who they were.) The type of president that we need would be a person with recognized leadership experience. (Being the chairman of a company that makes a fortune on secret projects is not good enough. Voters would be more likely to follow someone that led a political movement than a wealthy CEO with no identifiable political markings.) The type of president that we need would be a person that is well rounded. President Bush claimed to be a conservative by banging one or two ideological drums, but has obviously lost the big picture of what conservative voters demand. (Or, he never really cared in the first place.) The next president must be one that is equally well versed on matters of the domestic economy, foreign trade, border security, foreign policy, terrorism (both state-sponsored and non-national, both here and abroad), and the proper uses of our military. The type of president that we need would be a person that has a vision for the future, yet will not lose sight of the historical moorings that keep us from trying to build an empire.
Does such a candidate even exist? If so, voters can be sure of one thing. If such a candidate existed within either of the Big Two political parties, then that candidate would already be pictured on every newspaper, magazine, and television screen in America. The fact that the best the Democrats can come up with is Hillary Clinton is proof of why the chairman of the Communist Party of the USA told her state chairmen last year to vote for Democrats instead of running their own candidates. The fact that the best the Republicans can come up with are three men trying to prove that they are Democrats is proof that the GOP has seriously lost its way.
The next president of the United States must come from the Constitution Party. The Libertarian Party has received much attention from the major media, even though it is smaller than the Constitution Party (which the media ignore). But, the LP has an "open borders" policy that has caused even many of its long-time members to go elsewhere. (And, the LP's national bylaws — Article 6, Section 4 — prohibit cross-party endorsements. So there is no chance that they will build a coalition with other parties.) The Green Party has also been given much free advertising by the news media, which keep strangely silent about the GP's historic ties to the Baader-Meinhof terrorist gang. (The recent statements of a major Green Party candidate in Canada prove that the GP remains both pro-terrorist and anti-America.) Although there are dozens and dozens of smaller political parties in America, only those mentioned have enough members to even consider taking the White House. Only the Constitution Party has the combination of traditional American principles and the strength of numbers to actually win the 2008 presidential election. The only question remains whether they can come up with a team that can live up to the high expectations of American voters that seek true leadership.
The voters will be focused on Boise this weekend (even if the major news media are not). The voters are growing impatient and disillusioned with the current crop of candidates. The voters will be looking for a sign that the CP can truly stand and deliver.
© Tom Kovach
American voters are already becoming cynical about the 2008 presidential elections. In 2004, they voted for George W. Bush under three premises: 1) that he is a conservative, 2) that he is the head of a conservative party, and 3) that he has the security of our nation foremost in his plans. Instead, the American voter has learned that: 1) Bush continues to expand unconstitutional programs that are also favored by the Democrats, 2) government spending and power have grown under the Bush Republicans at a rate that at least equals the Democrats, and 3) Bush has proven not only feckless, but also reckless, when it comes to securing the borders of the United States. (He is in the process of sending an additional 25,000 troops to secure the borders of Iraq, while less than one-fourth of that many troops secure our own borders.) Given the facts, any voter that still thought of Bush and his Republican Party as conservatives in 2004 must surely have opened his eyes by now. Given that the major news media continue to tell the voters that there is a "two-party system" in this country, it becomes easy to see why those voters have become cynical. If both the Democrats and the Republicans have essentially the same goals — and, in many cases, now even the same methods — then what choice is there in the voting booth?
For the first time in a hundred years, the mood of the American voters is ripe for a real change in the political landscape. Conservative Democrats feel abandoned by their party once again (as they did when they voted for Ronald Reagan). Now, they are joined by conservative Republicans, who see no hope within a party that can only come up with flip-floppers such as Rudy Giuliani or John McCain as presidential candidates. There is a flicker of hope for conservative Republicans in the recent appearance of Fred Thompson as a possible presidential candidate. Thompson's positions on most issues are excellent, and his persona is pure Americana charm. But, during his tenure as a United States Senator, the likeable Thompson voted to expand NAFTA and to relax the immigration rules for foreign workers at a time when American jobs were declining. Given the mood of the American voters to secure our national borders and get rid of illegal aliens (now!), Thompson is likely to fizzle before long. Therefore, what choice do voters have? What candidate will support the traditional American values of laws based upon moral foundations, borders that are secure, and a robust economy that is based upon American ingenuity (and not the importation of "cheap" foreign labor)?
It is time for a president from something other than the Big Two political parties.
This coming Friday, 20 April 2007, the Constitution Party (the third-largest political party in America) will begin its Spring National Committee Meeting. The meeting will be held in Boise, Idaho. Under normal circumstances, mid-April of the year before a presidential election would be far too early to consider even looking at a list of possible nominees. But, the current political circumstances are nowhere near normal.
The United States has now been at war in Iraq longer than we were at war with Japan and Germany during World War Two. And, we have been at war in Afghanistan even longer than we've been in Iraq. Even as we continue to increase troop levels in those faraway countries, we have US Border Patrol agents in prison for stopping illegal aliens from entering our country. Even as the news media continues to tell our populace that our political "leaders" have declared the job market to be strong, all American car manufacturers have recently announced the layoffs of more than a hundred thousand workers each! Even as our president declares that the presence of National Guard troops along our borders will bring the security that we demand (and that our Constitution requires), the rules of engagement directed by that president put the troops on unarmed posts and compel them to retreat from confrontation with border-crossers. (Our troops are forced to choose between obeying their orders and obeying the Code of Conduct to which they swore an oath.) Even as politicians proclaim that the economy is strong, interest rates are rising because of loan defaults from American workers, whose jobs have been displaced by illegal aliens. And, politicians prevent the economy from regaining true strength, because they prevent American oil companies from drilling for oil beneath American land and territorial waters. At the same time, the threat of a dollar trade collapse — engineered by the Iranian Oil Bourse, combined with Chinese hording of strategic dollar reserves — is very real and growing daily.
Have you heard any of the existing presidential candidates address these key national issues?
Although it seems odd that so many people have already declared themselves as candidates for president, the dire circumstances above compel this writer to suggest that smaller parties should not wait until 2008 to seek their own candidates. Voters see the White House as currently in a leadership vacuum. The voters are looking for a leader that shows the type of vision and intellect that formed this country in the first place, that went toe-to-toe with Communism and won, that would take America to a better future by standing on the principles of our past. None of the current candidates fits that description. (There are two Republicans that come close, but the GOP is likely to undermine any chance they have of success.) The only way to elect a principled president is by making sure that such a candidate is neither a Democrat nor a Republican.
Here is what such a candidate should look like.
The type of president that we need would be a person of recognized intellect. We cannot afford a candidate that gives even the perception of being a lightweight in the brain department. The type of president that we need would be a person with at least some degree of existing name recognition. (Although the CP came up with a smart and principled team in 2004, and that team was successful enough to force the news media to put more than two lines on their charts, too much of the campaign energy was lost on just getting the voters to know who they were.) The type of president that we need would be a person with recognized leadership experience. (Being the chairman of a company that makes a fortune on secret projects is not good enough. Voters would be more likely to follow someone that led a political movement than a wealthy CEO with no identifiable political markings.) The type of president that we need would be a person that is well rounded. President Bush claimed to be a conservative by banging one or two ideological drums, but has obviously lost the big picture of what conservative voters demand. (Or, he never really cared in the first place.) The next president must be one that is equally well versed on matters of the domestic economy, foreign trade, border security, foreign policy, terrorism (both state-sponsored and non-national, both here and abroad), and the proper uses of our military. The type of president that we need would be a person that has a vision for the future, yet will not lose sight of the historical moorings that keep us from trying to build an empire.
Does such a candidate even exist? If so, voters can be sure of one thing. If such a candidate existed within either of the Big Two political parties, then that candidate would already be pictured on every newspaper, magazine, and television screen in America. The fact that the best the Democrats can come up with is Hillary Clinton is proof of why the chairman of the Communist Party of the USA told her state chairmen last year to vote for Democrats instead of running their own candidates. The fact that the best the Republicans can come up with are three men trying to prove that they are Democrats is proof that the GOP has seriously lost its way.
The next president of the United States must come from the Constitution Party. The Libertarian Party has received much attention from the major media, even though it is smaller than the Constitution Party (which the media ignore). But, the LP has an "open borders" policy that has caused even many of its long-time members to go elsewhere. (And, the LP's national bylaws — Article 6, Section 4 — prohibit cross-party endorsements. So there is no chance that they will build a coalition with other parties.) The Green Party has also been given much free advertising by the news media, which keep strangely silent about the GP's historic ties to the Baader-Meinhof terrorist gang. (The recent statements of a major Green Party candidate in Canada prove that the GP remains both pro-terrorist and anti-America.) Although there are dozens and dozens of smaller political parties in America, only those mentioned have enough members to even consider taking the White House. Only the Constitution Party has the combination of traditional American principles and the strength of numbers to actually win the 2008 presidential election. The only question remains whether they can come up with a team that can live up to the high expectations of American voters that seek true leadership.
The voters will be focused on Boise this weekend (even if the major news media are not). The voters are growing impatient and disillusioned with the current crop of candidates. The voters will be looking for a sign that the CP can truly stand and deliver.
© Tom Kovach
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
