Home » Politics/Policy » Currently Reading:

U.S. Senate Race in Missouri Has Four Candidates, Not Just Two

October 3, 2006 Politics/Policy 4 Comments

If you pay attention to most local media, mainstream and alleged alternative/progressive, you’d think the upcoming U.S. Senate race was between only two candidates, incumbent Republican Jim Talent and Democrat Claire McCaskill. But two others are on the ballot: Libertarian Frank Gilmour and Progressive (aka Green) Lydia Lewis.

From Frank Gilmour’s campaign site:

For far too long, our votes have been taken for granted; we either vote for the lesser of the two evils or we do not vote at all. My candidacy offers you a choice other than the two main parties. I’m not on the extreme left or the extreme right. I live in the middle, and I believe that most of you feel the same way.

Our politicians give us partisan bickering instead of legitimate debate. If you vote for me it will send a message to the two main parties that enough is enough! I’m not a career politician. I’m a small business owner and a family man. As a lifelong resident of Missouri, I promise to faithfully represent the people of this State. Give me six years to prove to you that I will serve Missouri with distinction and honor – after all, we are the SHOW ME STATE.

From Progressive Lydia Lewis’ campaign page:

Impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney: “I support investigation of charges that the President and Vice-President have committed acts amounting to ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’ Upon impeachment by the House, if evidence proving the allegations is presented to the Senate, I will vote to remove them. I don’t think any of my opponents would do so.”

Immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq

Repeal the USA Patriot Act (Former Sen. Jean Carnahan (D) voted for it, her replacement, Sen. Jim Talent (R), voted to extend it, and Claire McCaskill (D) supports it)

Enact universal single-payer health care for all

Take money out of politics and government with public financing of election campaigns

Adopt “instant runoff voting” (IRV) to expand voter choice, avoid having to settle for a mere “lesser evil,” eliminate “spoiler” strategies, and insure that candidates are elected with majority support

Renegotiate global trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA to protect labor and the environment from abuses by international business interests

Enact serious measures to combat global warming, promote development of clean, secure alternative energy, and promote mass transit and pedestrian, bicycle and rail transportation sources

Prohibit “privatization” of government functions

Prohibit hiring of permanent replacements for striking workers; make locked-out workers eligible for unemployment compensation

Protect reproductive freedom, including a woman’s unrestricted right to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy

I’m not endorsing anyone in this race, I’m simply suggesting the issues are far too important to completely ignore half the people who’ve stepped up to plate to seek the office. You can call them “fringe” candidates all you want but I have a far greater respect for them than anyone that sits on the sidelines and simply votes along party lines.

 

Currently there are "4 comments" on this Article:

  1. DB says:

    Given that the Libertarians and the Greens routinely run nuts as their candidates, I think it is appropriate to ignore them.

    [UR – And Democrats & Republicans run open and fair minded candidates seeking to improve the world for all? Democrats & Republicans are “nut” free or does all the money and slick polish of their campaigns just make them look more responsible? What would a million dollars do for the image and marketing of either the Libertarian or Progressive candidate?

    At some point we must find our way out of this two-party stranglehold in our bigger elections and the one-party stranglehold locally — it is simply not benefiting anyone except those in the midst of it. Ignore these two completely if you like but I honor anyone that makes that leap to becoming a candidate — no matter how nutty they may or may not be.]

     
  2. Brad Mello says:

    Steve — tempted as I am to agree with you regarding finding a way out of this two party stranglehold I can’t ignore the fact that we are a two party government. Unless we move to a parlimentary system were coalitions and majorities are built we must live with the two parties and work to change the parties from within. The neo-con religious right hijacked the Republican party — no reason why the moderates can’t take it back and no reason why progressives can’t exert significant influence on the Democrats. Brad

    [UR – I’m not saying we vote for either of these two candidates (well, you can’t anyway since you are in DC). But, the point is we can at the very least stop pretending like they don’t exist. Competition is a good thing. Talking to a major party candidate and saying, “Your progressive opponent was suggesting we have ‘instant runoff voting’, what do you think?” is not a bad idea. Different ideas and different perspectives can help and I don’t know that we can get those from within the two major parties themselves.]

     
  3. Douglas Duckworth says:

    I’m voting for Dukakis!

     
  4. Lydia Lewis is not a “nut.” (Now as for Jim Talent and Claire McCaskill…) I’ve worked along side her on a variety of activist projects and she’s as level-headed as they get. She has my vote.

     

Comment on this Article:

Advertisement



[custom-facebook-feed]

Archives

Categories

Advertisement


Subscribe