OK, it has been awhile, so time one again for the SelectSmart Presidential Candidate Selector. This time around my results were:

63% Match: Badnarik, Michael – Libertarian
46% Match: Kerry, Senator John, MA – Democrat
46% Match: Cobb, David – Green Party
46% Match: Nader, Ralph – Independent
43% Match: Bush, President George W. – Republican
36% Match: Brown, Walt – Socialist Party
26% Match: Peroutka, Michael – Constitution Party

Now, this puts me in a pickle. Normally I’d be happy to go ahead and vote for the Libertarian. They usually match my views best (although less so than in previous years, my views are evolving on some issues). And Badnarik is the only candidate with more than a 50% match on the quiz. (Which also jives with my gut feelings issues wise listening to and reading about the positions… I would never base anything on this quiz alone, as fun as it is.)

But… unlike the Libertarian candidates in the last three elections, who while clearly with no chance to win and with a few views that were “out there” even beyond my own, basically shared my philosophy and seemed like decent people. Idealistic, unrealistic perhaps, but basically sane even if a bit eccentric. Not so this year. Badnarik is a complete nutcase.

Dark Horse on the Third Ballot
(R. W. Bradford, Liberty)

Badnarik believes that the federal income tax has no legal authority and that people are justified in refusing to file a tax return until such time as the IRS provides them with an explanation of its authority to collect the tax. He hadn’t filed income tax returns for several years. He moved from California to Texas because of Texas’ more liberal gun laws, but he refused to obtain a Texas driver’s license because the state requires drivers to provide their fingerprints and Social Security numbers. He has been ticketed several times for driving without a license; sometimes he has gotten off for various technical legal reasons, but on three occasions he has been convicted and paid a fine. He also refused to use postal ZIP codes, seeing them as “federal territories.”

He has written a book on the Constitution for students in his one-day, $50 seminar on the Constitution, but it is available elsewhere, including on Amazon.com. It features an introduction by Congressman Ron Paul and Badnarik’s theory about taxes. His campaign website included a potpourri of right-wing constitutional positions, as well as some very unorthodox views on various issues. He proposed that convicted felons serve the first month of their sentence in bed so that their muscles would atrophy and they’d be less trouble for prison guards and to blow up the U.N. building on the eighth day of his administration, after giving the building’s occupants a chance to evacuate. In one especially picturesque proposal, he wrote:

“I would announce a special one-week session of Congress where all 535 members would be required to sit through a special version of my Constitution class. Once I was convinced that every member of Congress understood my interpretation of their very limited powers, I would insist that they restate their oath of office while being videotaped.”

One assumes, although one cannot prove, that none of this is an exercise in irony. At any rate, these opinions were removed from the website shortly after he won the nomination, and they didn’t come up when he visited state party conventions. Nor did his refusal to file tax returns, thereby risking federal indictment and felony arrest. While many of his closest supporters were aware of these issues, they were unknown to most LP members.

At the time of the Libertarian convention back when my blog was dark, there were a number of articles in main stream media echoing and confirming some of the goofyness and the basic information, but this article is the most detailed I have found regarding both this guys unorthodox opinions as well as the crazy politics that led to him getting the nomination over two other candidates that while not ideal either, were at least not this bad. There is no way I can possibly cast a vote for Badnarik.

Which puts me in a dilemma. None of the others appeal to me in the slightest either. At this point I have a pretty strong aversion to W. I think he has made just about every wrong choice possible since he has been in office, and ESPECIALLY in the last two years or so when he was able to use 9/11 as an excuse for just about everything.

I don’t have that same viceral feeling about Kerry, but on the other hand I know from some of the things he says that I will be pulling my hair out about many things he would advocate and the directions he would take on many issues if he won. But, the question becomes, are the things I would be upset with Kerry about less important than the things I would be upset with W about?? Quite possibly. I will have to think about that.

Meanwhile, of the other 46% candidates (although it galls me to even consider anybody under 50%) Nadar is out. Every time I see him interviewed the more my opinion of him drops. I find very little I can agree with him on, and from a character and personality point of view I just can’t see him as president.

Which leaves David Cobb. I know almost nothing about him. I will definately spend a bit more time researching him before the election. (Assuming he is on the Florida ballot, I’ll have to confirm that.) Just glancing at his issues summary on the SelectSmart site though I immediately see several things I could not support. Urgh.

I don’t really want to do a write in, and I will definately vote. Will I actually be forced to vote for Kerry? Yuck. Maybe it will have to be a write in. Dunno. :-(

It would be really nice if at least once, there was a candidate with a chance of winning that came even close to my views on at least, say 60% of the things I care about? But no, doesn’t look like that will happen any time soon…

Oh well.