I watched about as much of "Crashing the Parties 2004" on PBS the other night as I could. It's always interesting to get a nice, unfiltered view of the third party candidates and what they stand for. Even the nominating conventions are pretty damn interesting.<br><br>I think the biggest disappointment from watching was that of the Reform Party. They had a whole head of steam with a high-profile national candidate and a governorship, but couldn't turn it into a national movement like the LIbertarians or the Greens, even with the federal matching funds and ballot access.<br><br>Maybe the Reform Party could still put it together if they just present a pragmatic approach to governing as their name would suggest, but they may be past their time.<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey<br>

PBS's NOW actually had a 4-way debate between the Green, Libertarian, Constitution parties and Ralph Nader the same night of the VP debate. Refreshing to hear how every single one of them is against the war and against war in general, including the highly conservative and religious Constitution party candidate. And it's refreshing how every one of them has a plan to remove the troops asap. They all, except maybe the Green, want to strip the centralized Federal government of it's hulk, power and wastefulness. Every single one of them sees corporate control of DC as being one of the biggest problems. <br><br>I'm still deciding on whether to vote for Badnarik (LP) or write in Nader. But comparing what they had to say the same night as Edwards and Cheney... there's not a chance that I'm voting for the two-party system.<br><br>

Quit it! You're screwing with my focus on Kerry! <br><br>

Sounds interesting. I'll see if I can catch it somewhere. (Maybe C-SPAN has it.)<br><br>I worry though. Sometimes third party exhibitions involving the Constitution, Libertarian, and Green Parties can be a bit of a sideshow. That's mainly why I miss the idea of the Reform Party. Looking objectively at the parties, it's hard to believe that any of their sweeping ideologies would actually work in a real setting.<br><br>For instance, look at the Libertarian idea of keeping pollution from hurting people under civil property law. The EPA basically does that now for many of their mandates and it takes the attention of a states attorney to actually get anything done since no group of private citizens has the resources to pursue a civil case. Sure, you can get some applause from a group of right minded individuals saying that the EPA should be discontinued, but in the real world, we need government enforcement to keep the air and water clean. Ugh... and that's all without mentioning their twisted view of education.<br><br>The Greens and Nader are much closer to reality than the Constitution and Libertarian Parties, but they still have a few problems, mainly dealing with how they would handle businesses and trade. As much as I emotionally agree with Ralph Nader, I don't think it's productive to base a domestic agenda on a visceral hatred of corporations.<br><br>Sorry about all this. I can't really talk about third parties sometimes without criticizing them. I guess I'm just dissappointed that with all their diverging philosophies, none really speak to me very much.<br><br>-- Charlie Alpha Roger Yankee Whiskey<br>

As a member of the Libertarian Party, I have to agree that some of their "totalitarian" takes on their philosophies are probably too far (the EPA as you suggest and ZERO gun legislation come to mind). But with the balance of power being balanced out by at least two other parties (and hopefully more some day), I don't think that which doesn't make sense would come to be. Still, the hardline Libertarian stance comes from a particular philosophy that they believe in and their calls to action relate more closely with their platform beliefs ... that's more than can be said about the things to which Dems and 'Pubs play lip service, but to which they rarely follow through.<br><br>The reason we DO have things that don't make sense coming to be is that the two controlling parties are mostly owned by corporate interests. Hell, some day, I'd hope that there would be NO parties, just qualified individuals running, but history has shown that parties will always be around.<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p> I don't think that which doesn't make sense would come to be.<p><hr></blockquote><p> I don't know enough about the Libertarian Party to know what in their platform does not make sense but just hoping they do not come to fruition doesn't cut it. If you belong to the party you should fight to remove what does not make sense. <br><br>Many reluctant republicans are the same way. Abortion rights will never get repealed so it is OK to vote Republican. Environmental laws are not really going to get repealed so it is OK to vote Republican. No, this is faulty reasoning. Because eventually those senseless issues can get passed.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener