Election 2008: Voting for the Lesser of Two Weasels

When given a choice between a pro-abortion, protectionist, pro-civil liberties, race-baiting surrender candidate in favor of subsidized gay marriage for illegal alien pedophiles... and an anti-abortion, pro-free trade, tough-on-terror, donor-kissing corporate sycophant in favor of outsourcing all children to more competitive child rearing farms in India... for whom does the gun-owning Irish Catholic union member from New York vote to advance his overall values in Washington? Don't you feel like you're asked to make this choice in almost every election? I'd be the first to admit that it's a terrible choice.

In terms of Presidential campaigning in the United States, it's early yet. Here we are at the end of February 2007... and the General Election is not for another 19 months. Why the heck then are candidates stumping in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina? They are visiting these states because it's a battle for the early lead. Everyone wants to be the party favorite!! We knew Hillary would run back when her husband was the President. Barak Obama might have something to say about that. We knew John McCain would run (despite the announcement of an Exploratory Committee). Rudy Giuliani might have something to say about that.

Regardless of who the candidate might be, there is no one clearly the right choice for America. The choice we're being forced to make is between the lesser of two weasels. Or is it?? What about Write-In Candidates?? All Presidential ballots should have space at the bottom of the list for a write-in candidate. In some states the write-in must be formally certified before the General Election. As an example, the certification form from the State of North Dakota is here. Unfortunately, South Carolina is one of five states that forbids write-in candidates for the office of President, despite the fact that Strom Thurmond was elected to the U.S. Senate as a write-in candidate in 1954.