voting third party

If you are a voter who usually votes Republican,
If you are disgruntled by the growth in the size and spending of the federal government,
If your congressman/senator is not in the Coburn, Flake, Hensarling, Pence, Paul, et al mode and has not voted to reject such growth,
Vote libertarian this November.

You may have heard, been advised or actually already believe that voting for a third party is "wasting your vote". Actually, "wasting your vote" is when you stay home and do not vote at all. Doing such is one reason many believe Republicans will suffer losses this fall. "Wasting your vote" smacks of a herd mentality: "No one else is going to vote third party, so why waste your vote?" I myself have never bought into the fact that it is "wasting your vote" if you research all the candidates and find out that a third party candidate most closely reflects your beliefs. I believe "wasting your vote" is more accurately reflected in voting how you believe everyone else does or will. If we all behaved that way in the private sector, we would all use the exact same toothpaste, or put on our pants the exact same way, or eat the exact same foods, or read the exact same books, or listen to the exact same music, or go to the exact same tourist destination, etc.?

I know some who say voting Libertarian/third party, if you normally vote Republican, will do nothing more than contribute to liberal democrats regaining control of Congress. That indeed could happen, and it would be the worst possible outcome. It's why Bill Clinton was elected President. But what good is it to be in power if you do not use it to advance the ideas that put you there?? If Republicans are not brought to heel, they will never get the message. If they continue to be re-elected, nothing will change. Why would it? They will have the impression that everything is OK, that there is no objection to the way they have voted. While Bush has been in office, those good things that Congress has done that come immediately to mind are few: cut taxes, tighten bankruptcy laws, confirm judges who will presumably hew closely to the Constitution and funded the fight against terrorists. Those are outnumbered, by more than 3 to 1, by the bad things: Sarbanes/Oxley, the Medicare Prescription Drug bill, added to the complexity of the tax code (as if that was possible), McCain/Feingold/Shays/Meehan, No Child Left Behind, exponentially increased earmarks, increased funding for embryonic stem cell research, continued subsidies to farmers, increased the minimum wage (the house), kept costs of funding the fight against terrorists off the official books, interceded into the Terri Schiavo case, failed to carve private accounts out of social security, increased the debt ceiling, failed to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to energy production, etc.

If ever there was a time to "risk" GOP control of Congress, it would seem to be now while there is, nominally speaking, a Republican in the White House. There would no doubt be consequences. Thanks to the unserious John Conyers, silly impeachment charges might be brought against the President. Confirming judges who have respect for the Constitution might become more difficult. On the other hand, however, any proposed tax hike would likely bring out a second veto from Bush. He might even find it in himself to veto any new spending or federal programs sent to him by Congress. Plus, and biggest of all in my mind, it would decrease the chances that the White House will be lost to democrats in 2008. Potential nominees could point to any tax-raising, security-reducing, regulation-increasing, economic-retarding measure sent to Bush by a Democrat-controlled Congress and say "If a Democrat is elected President (next year), all those bills will become law."

Now, if only the Libertarian party would make at least one big push to introduce themselves to the public at large...