Today Uncle waived his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and openly admitted to throwing his vote away on the Looneytarian candiate, Michael Badnarik. I’d throw the book at him if he lived in a swing state like Florida, Ohio, New Jersey or even Hawaii (!), but since he lives in safely red Tennessee I will let him off on a technicality, even if he has cast a half a vote for the more libertarian of the two real candidates to “lose the popular vote,” a concept which means nothing legally but much politically in terms of propaganda value.
For anyone else tempted to throw his vote away on Badnarik as a matter of “principle,” I’d like to remind you just how silly that principle is. It’s one thing to vote for a Libertarian candidate who you know will never win, in order to send the message that you want the major parties to be more like him. It’s quite another to do that for an individual who is totally unfit to hold any elective office whatsoever, thereby encouraging the LP to field more of the same in future races. Like his predecessors, Michael Badnarik is a September 10 moonbat. Unlike any of his predecessors, however, he is also an unrepentant criminal who proudly admits to driving without a license and refusing to pay income tax. His running mate, Richard Campagna, appears to be relatively law-abiding, but scores equally high on the kook index by proudly sporting a fake Ph.D. Yup, these are two guys who deserve your vote, if only to “send a message,” whatever the hell kind of message that may be.
Uncle ignores Badnarik’s objectively pro-terrorist policies, and writes off his criminalilty using with a very strained moral equivalency argument:
Of course, doing cocaine, driving drunk, engaging in unauthorized meetings with the enemy, and lying under oath make you a criminal too. As do importing lobster tails that are less than five and a half inches, lassoing a catfish in Tennessee, and speeding.
I can’t speak to catfish or lobster tails, but speeding is generally not a crime, unless taken to unusual extremes. Bush’s DUI probably was, but comes about as close to an infraction as any DUI can, given that Bush’s B.A.C. at the time was at .10, right at the legal limit. In any event, Bush paid his debt to society for that crime, which in his case amounted to a whopping $150 fine and the brief suspension of his driving privileges, which he presumably honored (unlike Mike “Look Ma, No License!” Badnarik, who drives all the time). As to the largely unfounded rumors about cocaine use, suffice it to say if Bush ever used in the past, he hasn’t for decades, and the 1970s version of George W. Bush isn’t the guy we’re voting for or against on November 2 (unless you’re voting for Kerry, in which case your date is November 3).
Kerry’s crime of meeting with the enemy and perjuring himself before Congress during war time is a fair point, however. That too happened several decades ago, but unlike Bush, who has long since repudiated his youthful indiscretions, Kerry has yet to apologize for his meetings with the enemy, or for any of his anti-
war American lies before Congress, which he maintains to this day to have been true. Still, the statute of limitations on Kerry’s crimes, unlike Badnarik’s, ran out a long time ago. Kerry’s pigheaded refusal to admit he was wrong in the 1970s is annoying, but it is not a crime in itself, any more than President Bush’s refusal to hand his opponents three self-admitted mistakes to exploit is equivalent to making those mistakes again.
In that vein, I think I have finally figured out how President should have answered that snooty “lady” in the second debate who asked him, but not Kerry, to identify three of his own mistakes:
You want three mistakes, bee-yatch? I’ll give you three mistakes.
- Appointing Paul O’Neill.
- Re-appointing Clinton’s CIA Director, George Tenet, or at least not firing him on September 12, 2001.
- Answering this question.
UPDATE: SK Bubba says it all: “Good for you. Democrats in Tennessee thank you!”
UPDATE x2: Kevin Murphy, in a comment, links to this open letter to libertarians, purporting to be from John Hospers, the first Libertarian candidate for President and the only one to receive an electoral vote. Regardless of who authored the letter, it’s a must-read for anyone who is considering throwing away good votes for Badnarik.
UPDATE x3: Yup, it was from Hospers all right, and is also mirrored here. Bwahahahahahahahahaha.