Bristol’s Choice? Absolutely

Sometimes, political commentators amuse me.  In the last week or so since Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin announced that her seventeen year-old daughter Bristol Palin was pregnant, there’s been a lot of talk concerning the statement that it was “Bristol’s Choice”. This is in reference to Sarah Palin’s belief that abortion should be illegal for any situation.  Commentators on the left referred her to a hypcrite.

So let me get this straight – because she respects a law that she doesn’t agree with , she’s a hypcrite? She is simply showing an ability to respect a law, even though she disagrees with it.  And make no mistake about it, in the state of Alaska a teenager does not need parental consent for an abortion.  The decision on whether or not to keep the baby was Bristol Palin’s, and Bristol Palin’s alone.

Honestly, instead of running down Palin for hypocrisy, we should be praising her for this particular decision. Allowing her daughter to make her own decision indicates that she is someone who, if for some reason was to become President, would govern by the rule of law and not by her personal beliefs that may be contrary to the law.  The first sign of a good leader is someone who’s willing to enforce the law, even if they do not agree with that law.

And let’s be realistic here – our political system is inherrently slow and plodding.  The founders wanted political change to be slow. Hence, they set up a bicameral legislative system with an exutive who possesses veto powers and a court which can declare laws unconstitutional.  Change is slow to come by, so it’s always refreshing to see someone who will respect a law they disagree with. In my opinion, chances of actually changing such a law are, in all honesty, pretty slim.

Bob Barr: Is he 2008’s Ralph Nader?

Most of us should remember the 2000 Presidential Election. After the Supreme Court finally said, “No more recounts, Bush wins,” the Democratic Party proceeded to lay blame at various sources. Instead of looking at Al Gore’s own weaknesses, the Democrats instead chose to blame hanging chads, Katherine Harris, the Supreme Court, Jeb Bush, and of interest to this article, Ralph Nader. Many Democrats believed that had Nader not been on the ballot in Florida, enough of his supporters would have instead voted for Al Gore and changed the ultimate outcome. Whether that is the case is for neither here nor there because what matters is the perception. There could be a repeat of this situation this year, but the spoiler will not be Ralph Nader, but rather Libertarian candidate and former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr. Instead of spoiling the Democrats’ Presidential hopes, Mr. Barr could prove spoiler for Republican hopes.

Why does Mr. Barr have this potential? After all, the Libertarian Party’s 2004 candidate Michael Badnarik only received .32% of the national vote and did not play a significant factor in any state. However, unlike Badnarik who had no political experience when he ran for President, Mr. Barr served in the U.S. House of Representatives for 8 years, losing his seat only as the result of gerrymandering orchestrated by the Democratic controlled state legislature.

It is important to note that Mr. Barr is a traditional conservative at heart, not a Libertarian. He is pro-life and pro-2nd Amendment and sponsored the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (he has later apologized to the Libertarian Party for this). He is also a vocal supporter of the war on drugs (he has also reversed his position here), supports a speedy withdrawal of forces from Iraq with no permanent military installations, supports low taxes and low government spending, and introduced legislation to impeach President Clinton related to possible fundraising violations months before the Monica Lewinsky scandal came to light. And make no mistake, Mr. Barr’s hard-line right wing/libertarian positions are probably not going to take any votes away from Barack Obama, except for conservatives that may vote for Senator Obama only because of his stance on the Iraq war. Instead, at issue is whether Mr. Barr can take enough votes away from John McCain that could potentially sway the outcome in several states.

Obviously, the narrow margins that President Bush won Ohio and Florida in 2004 make them prime targets for Senator Obama in 2008. Assuming Ohio margins stayed similar to 2004, Mr. Barr would need only about 2% of the vote to hand the state to Senator Obama. A recent Quinnipiac University poll of Ohio voters showed Senator Obama at 44%, Senator McCain at 43%, and Mr. Barr at 2%.

Although Mr. Barr’s impact in Florida is less likely than in Ohio, it is still feasible if Mr. Barr were to get 4 or 5% of the vote. Another state of interest is Georgia. President Bush won Georgia easily in 2004, but one would think that Mr. Barr would be able to do extremely well in his home state. If Mr. Barr were to win at least 10% of the vote and African American turnout surged for Senator Obama, the state could potentially swing into Obama’s column. Another state which could be of interest is Indiana. Senator Obama has made a strong push in the state, while McCain has virtually ignored it. If Indiana becomes competitive, Mr. Barr may be able to take enough votes away from McCain to give Obama the win. Finally, Mr. Barr also has the potential to run strongly in several competitive mountain west states, including Colorado and Nevada.

Of course, all of this assumes that Mr. Barr is able to create a legitimate national presence and actually have an impact on the national election. Honestly, the time is ripe for him to do just that. This is a year that a similar candidate, Ron Paul, was able to create decent publicity during the Republican primaries. Republican candidate John McCain is by no means a conservative, and he won the nomination more because Republicans thought that he could win, than because he espoused their ideals. Unfortunately, the limits of our two-party system will lead many people who would ideally vote for Barr instead to cast their votes for Senator McCain, whom they view as the lesser of two evils. However, it is still feasible that if Mr. Barr gets his name and face out to the public and gets his views heard, he could create enough of a noise to win up to 5% of the national vote. While this would not be enough to win any electoral votes, Mr. Barr could run strongly enough to swing at least one important state and thus the election.