October 29, 2008

I”€™ve argued in The American Conservative that, because most states are not in contention, the only rational use of the ballot is to send a message by casting single-issue vote for the Third Party presidential candidate who represents that issue. The most important issue in facing America is the imminent abolition of the historic American nation by out-of-control mass immigration, both legal and illegal. Mass immigration is a disease of the heart; the war, the economy etc., are diseases of the skin. So that means voting for the Constitution Party’s Chuck Baldwin, who is by far the best on immigration and much else besides.

However, the great state of Connecticut, where I live, has managed to keep off its ballot both the Constitution party, for which I (along with Editorandpublisher T. Theodoracopulos) voted in 2004, and the Libertarian Party, which I would turn to because Bob Barr was good on immigration when a Republican Congressman and because his platform is still better than those of the major parties. (Which shows how awful they are).

And since I wrote my TAC piece, I have discovered that Connecticut also makes it effectively impossible to write in a candidate so that it will be counted (as opposed to being just a spoiled ballot.)

In fact, the only Third Party presidential candidate on the Connecticut ballot is Ralph Nader. I think Nader is a crackpot and a thug and, with my beautiful and brilliant co-author Leslie Spencer, wrote two exposes of him when I was at Forbes magazine. (You can read them here and here). Nader didn”€™t like it at all and, when I was later introduced to him by a foolhardy fan”€”he had refused to be interviewed”€”greeted me with curious threatening growl, like an angry tomcat.

But he’s still better on immigration than Obama and McCain. (For example, in the Third Party presidential debate, he said he”€™d secure the border against illegals, listing “€œinfectious diseases”€ as a justification”€”a sophisticated point, because most people don”€™t realize that screening for disease was very effective in the 1880-1925 Ellis Island era, with a significant proportion of would-be immigrants being sent back.

Plus, of course, he’s against this pointless war. (Now if Bush had invaded Mexico…)

Though I”€™m not the only member of the Takitribe to endorse Nader, I”€™m the one doing it resentfully.

Obama and McCain are both appalling on immigration. But McCain is worse, because he might be able to get through an amnesty, whereas without bipartisan support, I don”€™t think Obama will dare.

UPDATE: Since writing this article, Peter has discovered that Chuck Baldwin is, indeed, an official write-in candidate in Connecticut. And thus the question of whether conservatives should “resentfully” support Ralph Nader in the nutmeg state is now moot. Peter would like to reaffirm his support for Chuck Baldwin. [RS] 


Sign Up to Receive Our Latest Updates!