crappy poll on fox news

[tpahl]

The best chance for a third party is to gain enough seats in the Senate and House to influence with legislation. A third party Presidential canidate will never gain much support untill it seems possible that the person will have influence with the Congress.

A libertarian president would revive the power of veto. It iss something i think Bush should be reminded he can do.

As for libertarian senate and house they are running more candidates than all other third parties combined for offices throughout the US and have more elected than all other thrid parties combined. The presidential election is followed by far more people than local and statewide elections though so the advertising of a high profile candidate is great for all the local candidates.

 

[tpahl]

Because he is not recieving any media attention and is completely off of the radar screen. With Nader's poor polling his is still kicking Badnarik's ass in media mention.

Yeah, the media gets hung up on things. In addition to being hung up on things, the conservatives are pushing nader as much as they can both in the media and on the ballot and trying to quiet Badnarik.

As an example, here is an email I recieved from a list I am on.

Like many other 'bullies' this one gets 'up tight' when people with
comparatively little resources stand up to them and, as Badnarik did before,
calls his bluff. The last minute substitute still managed to break this
media bully's barrier.

Windows Media Playback
at http://txliberty.dyndns.org/inetpub/wwwroot/webfiles/RF040826.wmv



--- In
[email protected], Dean Ahmad <DeanAhmad@y...>
wrote:
The show is off! O'Reilly has pulled an O'Reilly.

I was actually in the car being driven to the show
when his deputy called me and informed me that
although they would identify me as a Muslim supporter
of Michale Badnarik, that I was not allowed to mention
Michael's name on the show! I declined to accept
those terms and they had the driver bring me back.
Michael must really have the Republicans terrified!

-I. Dean Ahmad

Here you have a supposedly 'fair and balanced' journalist that told his guest he could not mention badnariks name on the air. Do you think he would have said that had he been a supporter of of Nader? No of course not.

So yeah obviously badnarik is not getting much media as I would like and nader is getting alot. but I am not ready to blame his campaign for that. He is trying and is getting mentioned in papers everyday all across the country. Unfortunately he will probably not get the media he deserves until after the election when the media will no longer be able to ignore his results and their effect on the election.

 

[MtnBiker]

A libertarian president would revive the power of veto
.

The use of veto power does not make a leader and is light years away from an election issue.

 

[tpahl]

The use of veto power does not make a leader and is light years away from an election issue.

The role of president is not supposed to be a leader. He is charge of the executive branch of government. In the constitution you will see he is supposed to Veto bills from congress but not lead us anywhere. He is a public servant who should be led by the people not vice versa.

Veto power may not be an election issue, but the things that Bush has not Veto shows that he either does not understand his role as president or does support all the socialist bills being handed to him by the republican congress and THAT should be a campaign issue. Obviously Kerry and Bush would rather discuss christmas in Cambodia so they will probably turn down the invitation to debate in NY at the end of this month with the other candidates.

Travis

 

[MtnBiker]

He is a public servant who should be led by the people not vice versa.

The President not a leader?? And you want a Liberitarian canidate to be led by the people?? Yeah right!!

 

[Annie]

The President not a leader?? And you want a Liberitarian canidate to be led by the people?? Yeah right!!

MB, you are not looking for the 'demolition' of the UN, with warning? How obtuse of you! :spank3:

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Funny thing about that poll is they list all the names of third party candidates except one which they call "the libertarian candidate"

Looks like he is really getting popular.

in all fairness, that poll was created before the Libertarian candidate was offically declared. Probably a good thing. The President Forever game I have has the Libertarian as Gary Nolan.

I'm sure a name with the actual candidate would increase that percentage by 0.0001.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

The role of president is not supposed to be a leader.

I'm sorry, but any amount of credibility you might have built up with anyone was blown to hell with those 11 words.

 

[tpahl]

I'm sorry, but any amount of credibility you might have built up with anyone was blown to hell with those 11 words.

Well if you can point to me where in the constitution it says that the president is the leader of the people rather than a civil servant I will gladly change my mind.

If I lose credibility with anyone because I look to the constitution to define the role of president I really do not care.

Travis

 

[theim]

come on. Lets just face facts. In this election, which many are calling the most important of our time, hardly ANYONE is going to vote for Badnarik. Hell, if you go out in the street and ask people if they have heard of him, most will say no. I will be honestly suprised if he gets more than 1% of the vote. Same for Nader. Not many people are going to go third party just one election after 2000. So, to be quite frank, he really isnt that important.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Well if you can point to me where in the constitution it says that the president is the leader of the people rather than a civil servant I will gladly change my mind.

If I lose credibility with anyone because I look to the constitution to define the role of president I really do not care.

Travis

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

If that doesn't spell out "leader", I don't know what does. By the way, the Constitution doesn't say anything about the President being Commander and Chief of the Air Force or Marines. Does that mean they don't count?

 

[Annie]

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin...itutional.html#muscat_highlighter_first_match

Article II of the Constitution establishes the presidency and the executive branch of government. The powers of the President are not as clearly enumerated as those of the Congress. He is vested with the "executive" power by section 1. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1. Section 2 establishes him as the "commander and chief" and grants him power to give pardons, except in cases of impeachment, for offenses against the United States. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 2. Section 3 provides the power to make treaties (with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate) and the power to nominate ambassadors, ministers, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States. See U.S. Const. art. 2, § 3.

 

[tpahl]

come on. Lets just face facts. In this election, which many are calling the most important of our time, hardly ANYONE is going to vote for Badnarik. Hell, if you go out in the street and ask people if they have heard of him, most will say no. I will be honestly suprised if he gets more than 1% of the vote. Same for Nader. Not many people are going to go third party just one election after 2000. So, to be quite frank, he really isnt that important.

The very poll I am trying to discuss says that many people are saying they are voting for someone other than Kerry or bush. You may not like Badnarik, youmay not think it is a good idea to vote for him. You may even think that only 1% will vote for him, but if you respect responsible journalism, badnarik should be on the poll or at the very least nader should be taken off.

 

[tpahl]

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

If that doesn't spell out "leader", I don't know what does. By the way, the Constitution doesn't say anything about the President being Commander and Chief of the Air Force or Marines. Does that mean they don't count?

It spells out leader of the armed forces and servant to the people in representing the country to others.

 

[tpahl]

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin...itutional.html#muscat_highlighter_first_match

yep... he has power granted to him by the people to do certain things. he is not the leader.

 

[Avatar4321]

come on. Lets just face facts. In this election, which many are calling the most important of our time, hardly ANYONE is going to vote for Badnarik. Hell, if you go out in the street and ask people if they have heard of him, most will say no. I will be honestly suprised if he gets more than 1% of the vote. Same for Nader. Not many people are going to go third party just one election after 2000. So, to be quite frank, he really isnt that important.

Heck some people dont even know who John kerry is yet. Hannity had Flipper out doing the interviews on the street like jaywalking today. half the people thought the Democrats were running a candidate named Jim Kearns with his running mate Stu Ped. they cant even keep up with the name candidates who have names who are one-two syllybles does anyone think they are going to know who badnarik is?

 

[tpahl]

Heck some people dont even know who John kerry is yet. Hannity had Flipper out doing the interviews on the street like jaywalking today. half the people thought the Democrats were running a candidate named Jim Kearns with his running mate Stu Ped. they cant even keep up with the name candidates who have names who are one-two syllybles does anyone think they are going to know who badnarik is?

The people that can not remember the democrats candidates name is not going to vote so i doubt you should be basing anything on their opinion.

 

[MtnBiker]

In the 1960 Presidential campaign John F. Kennedy spoke eloquently about the President being the Leader of the Free World:

The President's responsibility cannot be delegated. For he is the one focal point of responsibility.

February 12, 1960

By John F. Kennedy

I have premised my campaign on the central issue of the Presidency itself-its powers, their use and their decline. . . . For this is no mere popularity contest. We may enjoy the sideshows, the fanfare, and the headlines. But it is a President we are electing. And no Democrat can dodge the real issue of the Presidency's decline if he hopes to win in 1960....

Perhaps we could afford a Coolidge following Harding. And perhaps we could afford a Pierce following Fillmore. But after Buchanan this nation needed a Lincoln-after Taft we needed a Wilson-after Hoover we needed Franklin Roosevelt. . . . And after eight years of Eisenhower, this nation needs a strong, creative Democrat in the White House.

And nowhere is this need more critical than in the conduct of our foreign affairs. For Pennsylvania Avenue is no longer a local thorough-fare. It runs through Paris and London, Ankara and Teheran, New Delhi and Tokyo. And if the soul of a journey is liberty, as Hazlitt has said, then the road from the White House that encircles the globe is freedom's way-the artery that makes all the Free World neighbors as well as allies.

And if Washington is the capital of the Free World, the President must be its leader. Our Constitution requires it-our history requires it-our very survival requires it. In foreign affairs, said the Supreme Court, "the President alone has the power to speak or listen as the representative of this nation."

"The President alone..." And he is alone-at the top-in the loneliest job in the world. He cannot share this power, he cannot delegate it, he cannot adjourn. He alone is the Chief of State, not the National Security Council, Vice-President and all. He alone decides whether to recognize foreign governments, not his Senate minority leader. . . . He alone must decide what areas we defend-not the Congress or the military or the CIA, and certainly not some beleaguered generalissimo on an island domain.

If nuclear tests are to be halted-if disarmament is to become a reality-then he alone must lead the way, and not leave it to the warped judgment of the AEC [Atomic Energy Commission] and the Pentagon. And if India is to be saved-if the missile gap is to be closed-if we are to help Latin American democracies (instead of dictators)-the decision is his alone, and not that of the little men with little vision in the Bureau of the Budget.

In this 1960 campaign, four facts ought to be made clear about presidential responsibility in foreign affairs:

First, the President's responsibility cannot be delegated. For he is the one focal point of responsibility. His office is the single channel through which there flow the torrential pressures and needs of every state, every federal agency, every friend and foe.

He does not have to wait for unanimous agreement below, summed up in one-page memoranda that stifle dissent. He does not have to wait for crises to spur decisions that are long overdue. He must look ahead-and sometimes act alone-like Woodrow Wilson, locked in his study, typing his own notes to the Kaiser; or, in the words of his assistant, devouring a stack of state papers like "a starving man with a pile of flapjacks" (somewhat in contrast, I might add, to the veteran White House usher's description of Calvin Coolidge: "No other President in my time ever slept so much").

For Woodrow Wilson knew, in his own words, that in a nation's foreign affairs, the President must of necessity "be its guide-take every first step of action, utter every initial judgment . . . suggest and in large measure control its course. Thus most of the great landmarks of our foreign policy bear the name of the President who initiated them-Washinton's Proclamation of Neutrality, Monroe's Doctrine, Wilson's Fourteen Points, Roosevelt's Four Freedoms, and Truman's Point Four Program.

Occasionally we remember secretaries of state as well-but usually when they overshadowed their chief: Seward for the Alaska purchase, not Andrew Johnson; Hay for the Open Door policy, not McKinley; Hughes for the Washington treaty, not Harding. . . . Certainly the President should use his secretary of state. But he should be the captain of the bridge, and not leave it to the helmsman to sail without direction. For in the words of Socrates: "If a man does not know to what port he is sailing, no wind is favorable."

Secondly, the President's responsibility cannot be abdicated to the Congress. Certainly Congress has a role in foreign affairs, constitutionally and practically. It can approve-it can appropriate. But it cannot exercise ultimate power-for it has no ultimate responsibility. It has no way of relating widely separated events, or assessing day-to-day dangers. It has no ambassadors or armies, no access to secret reports, no right to negotiate treaties or construct coalitions. We recognized this in our earliest days when we asked the king of Sweden to address no more letters "to the President and the Senate of the United States."

For these burdens are essentially the President's-and he cannot shift his responsibility to the Congress, under the guise of bipartisanship, asking our support for an unknown policy on Quemoy and Matsu, asking our support for a Middle East doctrine that was more public relations than policy. For bipartisanship does not mean-and was never designed to mean rubber-stamping every executive blunder without debate. . .

No modern President of either party, of course, would deceive the Congress-like Secretary of State Webster, reportedly using his own secret map to convince the Senate that he had cheated the British in drawing the Canadian border, while at the same time Lord Ashburton was using his own secret map to convince Parliament that in reality he had cheated Webster. Nor will today's Congress and Executive actually meet in mortal combat-as Secretary of State Clay and Senator John Randolph did, when the Senate wasn't consulted on the Panama Conference, and the Senator denounced Clay's aged mother for bringing into the world "this being, so brilliant yet so corrupt, which, like a rotten mackerel by moonlight, shines and stinks."

But even today the President should be prepared to resist unwarranted congressional intrusions in foreign affairs. Above all, he must protect his Foreign Service against thoughtless congressional attacks and investigations. There are always some farm organizations looking out for their department-just as labor unions, veterans, business groups, and postal employees look out for theirs. But the Foreign Service has no pressure groups, no constituency-only the President. And the next President-a Democratic President-must champion and restore this vital agency.

Third, the President's responsibility is to all the people. He must strengthen them-and draw strength from them; educate them-and represent them; pledge his best-and inspire theirs. If he rejects "Operation Candor" as politically dangerous, if he constantly reassures an imperiled nation that all is well, if he answers all critics with an air of infallibility, or, worst of all, if he himself is not informed and therefore cannot inform the people-then the Presidency has failed the American people.

We cannot be reassured that we are building the best defense merely because we now have a general in the White House. For we have had generals in the White House before-and when Grant was asked in 1868 if he really wanted to be President, he was honest enough to reply:"No, I am a military man, not a statesman. I would just like to be Mayor of Galena long enough to build a sidewalk from my house to the station."

Our greatest foreign policy Presidents were not military men. They did not request unquestioning faith. They kept the people informed. They eloquently defined the aims and aspirations of the nation. Mr. Eisenhower's messages may be delivered in well-chosen words-but they sound more like the chairman of the board describing another profitable quarter.

There has been no willingness to say the harsh things that sometimes need to be said-to take the hard steps that may not be popular or convenient-like Thomas Jefferson, purchasing the Louisiana Territory despite outcries from the budget-cutters of his day that we could not afford \\$15 million for this "wilderness"-or like George Washington, standing by the Jay Treaty despite being abused, as he wrote, "in such exaggerated and indecent terms as could scarcely be applied to Nero, to a notorious defaulter or even to a common pickpocket."

Compare these Presidents to those who yielded to public pressure instead of educating it: Madison being dragged into a war he knew was unsound; McKinley being led into a war he knew was unnecessary; Harding blessing a disarmament conference he knew was unwise; Coolidge hailing a peace pact he knew was unwQrkable. We cannot afford in the turbulent sixties the persistent indecision of a James Buchanan, which caused Ohio's Senator Sherman to say: "The Constitution provides for every accidental contingency in the Executive-except a vacancy in the mind of the President."

In 1960 we must elect a President who will lead the people-who will risk, if he must, his popularity for his responsibility....

Fourth and finally, the President's responsibility is to the Free World as well as the nation. Even before the Constitution was ratified, Jefferson predicted that "the election of a President some years hence will be much more interesting to certain nations of Europe than the election of a king of Poland ever was." And today, as the 1960 campaign begins, every nation of Europe-and the world-is in fact watching our politics and policies. As the British cartoonist David Low has said of every Free World citizen: "Fate has made us all Honorary Americans."

And thus the President of the United States-the leader of that Free World-must represent all its nations, in his every word and deed. And to them in turn his words-in his every press conference and message-represent the real "Voice of America." If they hear not one voice but many-from State, from Treasury, from Defense-they feel in doubt. And if they see him in doubt, they feel betrayed. . .

But if the President is to be creative in foreign policy, his party must be creative. . . . Historically and inevitably the forces of inertia and reaction in the Republican Party oppose any powerful voice in the White House-Republican or Democrat-that seeks to speak for the nation as a whole. Theodore Roosevelt discovered that. Herbert Hoover discovered that and, even before he could run for President, Nelson Rockefeller discovered it. Even President Eisenhower considered forming a third party in 1954. No Republican President, no matter how dedicated, can escape the quicksand of his party's entrenched interests.

But the Democratic Party is a national party-it believes in strong leadership and, with your help, we will give the nation that leadership in January 1961.

John Adams, our second Chief Executive, would not war with France, despite popular pressures from this young and reckless land. In this way he preserved the infant nation-he paved the way for the Louisiana Purchase-but he also insured his own bitter defeat for reelection. Yet later, as death drew near, he wrote to a trusted friend: "I desire no other inscription over my gravestone than this: "Here lies John Adams, who took upon himself the responsibility of peace with France..."

In 1960, the next President of the United States must be prepared to take upon himself the responsibility of peace with all the world.

Link


Well said by President Kenney, yet some who want people to believe the President is not a leader.

 

[tpahl]

In the 1960 Presidential campaign John F. Kennedy spoke eloquently about the President being the Leader of the Free World:


Link


Well said by President Kenney, yet some who want people to believe the President is not a leader.

I did not say the president can not be a leader. I said the president need not be a leader. The constitution outlines a position of a civil servant granted power by the people. A charismatic leader type person may assume that office, but his role as president is not to lead the people, but rather to serve the people.

Travis

 

[AequitasVeritas]

I did not say the president can not be a leader. I said the president need not be a leader. The constitution outlines a position of a civil servant granted power by the people. A charismatic leader type person may assume that office, but his role as president is not to lead the people, but rather to serve the people.

Travis

Unless the nation is at war.