I find this amusing.  This controversy would not have come about if not for "3rd Party Watch" passing it to where the Constitution Party director could see it.  Whatever else it is, it is more interesting than the current media-hyped fight between Hillary and Obama over David Geffen's finanical backing, as well as about as significant to the lives of any person I know.  My advice to the people of the Constution Party -- ignore Gene Chapman.  Understand, I do not think much of the Constitution Party, but I think one can recgonize a practical jokester when one sees him.  Gene Chapman is either knowingly or unknowingly the equivalent of Ali G, Borat, or Phil Hendrie, or a second rate morning radio zoo prank caller.

I guess he has played his antics with the Libertarian Party -- to well enough cheer, and is now, within his domain, attempting a Libertarian -- Constitution Party fusion?  If the Constution Party wants him to carry out his charade before them in their domain at their Idaho Convention, as they apparently are, that is their business.

In 2004, I heard a right wing Christian radio show interview with their 2004 presidentital candidate -- some guy whose name starts with a "P", where the host explained to the listener that if the election is fractured enough, he doesn't even need to get nearly a majority to win -- 30 percent of the vote might suffice and this man might just be your next president.  His election returns being a rounding error, he was only 30 percent off from where he needed to be then.

The perils of third partydom is that they end up taking Gene Chapman seriously… to some degree or other.

The “C” stands for “Communist”…

I imagine Ronl Paul to be the Republican 2008 equivalent of the Democratic 2004 Dennis Kucinich. Reportedly, one might walk past Dennis Kucinich’s Portland campaign headquarets and hear an all night burner, Bob Marley and a drum circle, whiffs of marijuana blowing out, nobody really accomplishing anything per se but in the midst of a political cause nonetheless. Picture Ron Paul’s campaign with some Ayn Rand recording
in place of Bob Marley, discussions merging from the tyranny of the United Nations to the War of Southern Aggression and how Lincoln paved the way to continued government consolidation.

The rankers of such thing tend to have Paul as right about 50-50 on the liberal – conservative rankings. This is the necessary limitations of a ranking that would, for instance, toss Paul liberal points for voting against a budget cut on Head-Start, when Paul’s reason for voting ‘no’ is that the program shouldn’t exist in the first place — not prescribed in the Constitution. He’s also as pure an anti-war candidate as you will find anywhere, tossing the additional loop in there that he never has said a good word about the current Republican President.

Can Paul be denied from the debates? He’s not likely to endorse or support the eventual nominee — McCain, Romney, Brownback (wait — do I actually think Brownback might be the nominee? In lieu of anyone else acceptable to your Social Conservative, yes.) I think he’s the obvious choice for the Libertarian Party to pluck right out of the burners of the Republican primary season and show themselves a better profile than possible with anyone else. Mockingly, I say the Libertarian Party could have Paul as their Fusion candidate. Back to the Kucinich comparison, in 2004 John Hagelin, the 2000 and 1996 and probably 1992 Presidential candidate for the now defunct Natural Law Party had Kucinich as the end point for a Democratic — Natural Law fusion ticket. Not going to happen, of course, as Kucinich was never going to be nominated president. (The Natural Law Party loved fusions, such as their 2000 delapidation of the Reform Party.)
Maybe the Republican Party could shove him out of the debates unless he agrees to support the eventual Republican nominee, and not run on any third party ticket. There were 2 elected Democrats shoved out in such a manner in 1992 — a minor city mayor, who did end up in a debate but was then unceremoniously framed out of the AP photo — and Eugene
McCarthy — and Mike McGavick is 2008’s version of McCarthy 1992. (Incidentally, McCarthy in 1992 ran against George Bush the elder’s speech patterns. Go check back and you’ll see!) I’d think, however, the Republican Party would much prefer to frame out Tom Toncredo — and their framing outs bullets are perhaps limited.

Here’s a question. Is it better for Ron Paul to have a speaking slot at the Republican convention or run a campaign as a Libertarian Party candidate? A platform is what Ron Paul’s campaign is about. Ron Paul denies that, but I don’t believe him. I have think about that question for a minute before answering it, because I don’t immediately know the
answer.

Yesterday, at the public library, I read the “Events today” paper next to the Events conference room. Apparently there was something about an introduction to “Transcendental Meditation / Peace” that the public at large could attend.

This is a shadow government. Kind of. There was a political party based around Transcendental Meditation — that old joke of the Natural Law Party. The premise is that to solve the world’s problems, you sit around and do nothing, saying “Oom” a lot. I have my doubts about this approach — our current president seems to have a part of that in his philosophy (without the oom) and I can’t say I like the results. Anyways, when the party dissolved in 2004, the erstwhile leader of the party, John Hagelin, converted the key pieces to a “US Peace Government” — which, I guess, would be the very definition of “Shadow Government” (Definition Number Two in a would-be dictionary) in the sense that it shadows the actual government. Which, I guess is the marker for the word “Peace”.

I did not touch this thing with a ten-foot pole.

Something I note at the library: as per the Dewey decimal system, there’s a large selection of books on the Republican Party at the library. Followed by a large selection of books on the Democratic Party with a decimal .2 degrees apart. The two book selections for this that are worth a gander are obviously published as a set: Grand Old Party : A History of the Republicans and Party of the People : A History of the Democrats. The most interesting parts of the books, apart from noting the differences in how the books end up dividing up the years according to the era and sub-eras of the two partys’ histories, are for the Democratic Party the years in exile between 1920 and 1932 and for the Republicans the years in exile in the decade of the 1930s.

Anyways, the next decimal number has one sole volume. A Reason to Vote by Robert Rot, a book promoting… the Natural Law Party.

I smirk “Wow. A while Decimal point for the Natural Law Party!” But I know better. The Communist Party of America gets a whole tenth of a decimal; the Natural Law Party doesn’t. This is a dirge of third party material, and this is the only book the library has here.

“Just because I bite somebody, it doesn’t make them a vampire,” Sharkey said. “It doesn’t make them evil, and they’re not going to be like — hiss-s-s! — all over the place. I mean, let’s be real here.”

I am not averse to voting for fringe candidates. Heck, I’m struggling wondering why many of the currently elected “public servants” aren’t consigned to the fringes of our political life — my big bugliobo being Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn with his “rampant lesbianism in the bathrooms of Southeast Oklahoma schools”. In the same way I have yet to vote for a Democrat or Republican for president, in the two Portland mayorial primaries I’ve had the privilege of voting in, I have selected Shaun J Fairlee and … Extremo the Clown. Evidentally, Portland elected a “fringe candidate” of sorts for mayor back in the 1980s in Bud Clarke, although… his lack of seriousness was a ruse to throw off the insider candidate, who come election day is said to have said something to the effect of, “I want to vomit.” (His most famous contribution to politics had been this.)

“We’ve got enough screwballs in politics already,” one man said.

“I don’t understand where these people come from, but to each his own,” another said.

For what it is worth, I slyly inserted Jonathon “The Impaler” Sharkey into my “endorsement” list. Whatever that means. But the case of this gubernatorial candidate has arrived at political and religious impasse:

The Princeton School District is requesting that Julie Carpenter be removed from driving or having contact with students. It is our opinion Ms. Carpenter does not serve as a role mode nor is suitable to perform transportation services for the Princeton School District in light of recent media reports of her husband/friend to be a vampire who is running for public office and Ms. Carpenter informing other bus garage employees that she is a witch.

The parents of the good little Christian kids have the chore of explaining how somebody might be a witch, and how somebody might use blood-sucking as a metaphor of what the political establishment does in office. I guess that’s more aggrivating than explaining Janet Jackson’s breast? I don’t know.

As she said, she’s not sucking the children’s blood. Another case of how you cannot acceptably travel outside society’s-definition of acceptable (and frequently odd) belief-systems and behaviour.

Ralph Nader paid a visit to Yale, and said some words in front of “The Tomb”.

It’s worth a gander:

George W. Bush and John Kerry have been members of the Yale secret society – Skull and Bones – since the late 60s. Hundreds of Bonesmen are in powerful positions at the top echelons of government and business. They are sworn to secrecy throughout their lives, bound together for life, says Yale’s William Sloane Coffin. Skull and Bones alumni have a common drive to get their members into “positions of power” and to have those members hire other members into similar positions of power, says Alexandra Robbins, author of the book, Secrets of the Tomb, and herself a member of another secret society at Yale.

These are questions that cannot be cavalierly dismissed by Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry; if they cannot or will not answer them they should resign their membership in Skull and Bones publicly and immediately.

MORE

The consumer advocate said Bush has appointed to public office 10 members or former members of Skull and Bones.

“We’re dealing here with members of a secret society who presumably prefer each other in terms of advancing each other, recommending each other, appointing each other to public positions and enhancing each other’s business deals,” said Nader, a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law School.

We await Bush and Kerry for answers. Perhaps they’ll cover it in the next debate?

Well… too Nader wasn’t invited to needle them on it. I … guess.

In the deep recesses of CSPAN or CSPAN 2 in the year 2000, a debate between the presidential candidates of the Natural Law Party, Constitution Party, and Libertarian Party was shown. The only thing I remember from this was the debating over who would take over the remnants of the Reform Party: the mantle for Conservatism since Pat Buchanan of the Reform Party was floundering, and the Natural Law candidate saying he was the natural heir since he was in a court fight over who was the actual Reform Party candidate.

If that wasn’t enough, there was also the vice-presidential debate between their respective running-mates. Just in case you needed to know who was a spit and a half away from the button in case John Hagelin or Harry Browne won. The three buttressed the top of their tickets and proceeded to go on about the respective philosophy of “limited government”, “inter-cooperated government” and “biblical government”.

A day or two after the election, in talking about the Florida situation and the election in general, I noticed a sort of underground cult fondness for John Hagelin. Good to see that I wasn’t the only one. (Not that I take Hagelin too seriously, as far as these things go.)

Flash back to 1996, when Saturday Night Live had Dana Carvey playing Ross Perot, attending a third party debate. We go through the various candidates: Perot, miffed that he was sitting there; the candidate for some marginal real party, then the candidate for the Totalitarianism Party, and the candidate for the Female Circumscision Party. (“And what do you believe?” “Well, I believe that all of our nation’s problems will be solved with forcible circumscision of all women.”)

Perot’s rhetoric remains the same. “Sure, we all want a dictatorial totalitarian government to protect us and shield us from our own dangerous thoughts, but who’s gonna pay for it?”

Eventually Perot leaves, and the moderator says “Well, let’s look at the polls.” .0007% for the Totalitarian candidate, .00009% for the Female Circumscision Party candidate… an argument ensures, which leaves one of the candidates saying “Yeah, you can say that… being the front-runner.”

It’s a much more interesting debate than the “Memorandum of Understanding” — constricted pountering of talking points that we get. (See here.)

Jump back to the Simpsons, where Kudos and Klang take over the bodies of Clinton and Dole. When exposed as aliens, the crowd murmurs. “I believe I will have to vote for a third party candidate.” “Go ahead. Waste your vote.” The crowd gasps. Perot punches a hole into his hat. And, after the planet is completely enslaved and we see the Simpsons in a slave-camp, Homer says “Don’t believe me. I voted for Kudos.”

Or maybe the leader of the now defunt Natural Law candidate?

I recall a throw-away gag reference to the Natural Law Party on an episode of “Pinky and the Brain”.

I read the John Hagelin entry in the 1996 Washington State Voter’s pamphlet… laughing.

Though, I have to say: I appreciated some of the sentiment. On first blush, it all makes sense. Focus on prventing problems, not solving after they happen.

But… then we get into an area where we somehow need to become better… spiritually attuned. How? I don’t know… through transcendental meditation… sit around, wish our problems away, and they so disappear.

And it all falls apart.

I was sympathetic in 2000. A poster at Pinkwater.com wrote that he reminded them of the New Age phoneys in “Alan Mendelsohn”, which prompted me to write in and somewhat defend him — and prompted Pinkwater to write back saying that he looks like every other politico. And I smiled when someone, right after the election, sitting around talking about the post-election fiasco, said to me that they liked that “alternate Reform Party candidate”…

I would’ve voted for him if there weren’t any clear number one third party protest vote, as there was (and as there doesn’t really look to be in the 2004 election cycle.)

The Natural Party way appears to have regularly tried to schlep onto other parties. The Reform Party in 2000 is the most famous for its high drama (Hagelin and Pat Choate– Perot’s running mate in 1996 and a man who fully endorsed Pat Buchannan in 2000, unlike Perot, thus serving as the bridge between the two sections of the party history — appeared on Nightline, debating their side of the story on what happened at the convention, and who the rightful candidate for the Reform Party was.) They apparently earlier tried to make Hagelin the candidate for the Green Party…

Rumoured is that they wanted Dennis Kucinich as their 2004 nominee — not likely since Kucinich is a loyal Democrat. John Hagelin endorsed Kucinich in the Democratic primary.

But, the party has dis-integrated, following the lead of the Party in Europe. And, reported in politics1, the party has morphed into a creepy shadow government…

… though, looking over their itenerary, I get the feeling they are going to enact a big part of their political platform despite the part that they’re not in power… ie: transcendentally meditate…

… have everyone take their hats off and rub their bellies.

The Libertarian Party had two telegenic and interesting candidates. One focused on left-wing libertarian issues — drug legalization and strong anti-war viewpoints … Aaron Russo. The other tended more toward the right-wing libertarian issues.

Gary Nolan ended up releasing his delegates (didn’t think much of Russo, apparently), and a third — amazingly uninteresting candidate won… who’s focus (if not full spectrum of votes) pegs him down pegged down as a single-interest pro-gun guy.

I’m disappointed. The Libertarian Party has let me down.

I guess I’m stuck voting for Kerry…

A couple dozen protesters, wielding signs, stand outside the building. The only sign that made an impression upon my memory said “Ralph Nader… George Bush’s ONLY Chance”. Some of the Nader-detractors had on their pins “John Kerry 2004”. They were mixing it up with some Nader supporters waiting to come into the building, heated arguments about the nature of the two-party system and the Tweedle Dees and the Tweedle Dums.

Looking inside the windows, I saw the set-up: on the edges, the political activists were sitting down, waiting for signatures to gather to them. Evidentally, the head-counters were in full force as well, waiting for a thousand people — a thousand person gathering being one of the measures that could get Nader on the ballot.

Never happened. 700 people came.

To wit, Nader left undaunted. “The ball game, it had to be the ball game.” — referring to the NCAA Men’s Basketball Championship Game.

Remarks that would show the same disconnect from reality that the idea that he might attract a huge Republican vote does…

If true. According to someone posting at the local Anarchist/Left internet hangout, it was a joke.

… Though I’m getting contradictory information here. …

“Our support is heavily working class,” Nader’s Oregon chairman, Greg Kafoury, told the AP, “and for those people this is the biggest night of the year.”

Whichever… I’m left pondering the fate of a man who easily filled up buildings at the drop of a hat in this fare city as short as a year ago… if not here, where? If not then, when?