Other choices for President: though they don't get many headlines, alternative presidential candidates to Bush and Kerry are on the ballot.

The presidential race is the political equivalent of big-league sports. Like football fans eager to display their mastery of team standings and player statistics, political junkies are able to regurgitate the "internals" of each candidate's polling numbers in detail. These same amateur political analysts eagerly pontificate about why the two major candidates are rising and tailing--much like a Monday morning quarterback explains why Peyton Manning has so much trouble playing the big game while "Ibm Brady performs so well under pressure.

As is the case every four years, the major media are obsessed with delivering blow-by-blow accounts of the Republican-Democrat presidential race. In part, --the media fascination is understandable the race for the presidency is the only race which national media can cover coast-to-coast. But many in the media hype the presidential race, implying that the effects of the race will reverberate for a lifetime and that a citizen's decision for president is the only significant decision that will be made in the voting booth.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The presidential race is not "all-important" because presidential power lies largely in presidential initiatives, which have no teeth unless the legislative branch of government acts to make them happen --meaning that the most important political races are, collectively, those for seats of the House and Senate. In fact, a review of the policies of the two major candidates indicates that this particular presidential race is much, much less important than it is being made out to be.

Though George W. Bush and John Kerry do have some differences and appeal to very different constituencies, they are alike in many respects, holding similar viewpoints on many issues. For instance, both Bush and Kerry have sought higher federal social welfare spending; a greater role for the United Nations in Iraq; amnesty for illegal aliens: more foreign aid; and more federal spending on, and control over, health care and education. Neither candidate plans to submit a balanced bud get proposal to Congress over the next four years, and both candidates wrongly claim that the president has the power to commit our nation to war. (The Constitution explicitly says that only "Congress shall have the power to ... declare war.")

Both Kerry and Bush are, in essence, spokesmen for the same causes. Their mare difference lies in how each packages his message to appeal to differing constituency groups.

Taking all of the foregoing into account, here are profiles of three of the more notable alternative presidential candidates--Michael Badnarik, who is expected to be on the ballot in 48 states as we go to press; Michael Peroutka, who is expected to be on the ballot in at least 37 states; and Ralph Nader, the only third-party candidate registering at least percent of the vote in public opinion polls, who is expected to be on the ballot in at least 36 states.

Ralph Nader

Independent Ralph Nader is the third party candidate who has received the most press coverage. Founder of the leftist Public Interest Research Groups, or PIRGs, Nader is making his fourth run for president. In the past, Nader has run under the umbrella of the far-left Green Party, a socialist party modeled on European Green Parties.

In 2000, Nader placed third with 2.7 percent of the popular vote nationwide. Democrats credited Nader with pulling enough liberal votes away from AI Gore to enable George W. Bush to squeak by with an Electoral College majority (though Gore won 500,000 more votes than Bush in the popular vote). The Green Party candidate this year is David Cobb of Benton Harbor, Michigan.

Nader's running mate is Peter Michael Camejo, a radical Socialist from California. A graduate of Harvard University and Princeton Law School, Nader maintains many of his leftist positions of old: strong support for socialized medicine, support for the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision "legalizing" abortion, support for elimination of a national missile defense program, support for same sex marriages, support for taxpayer-funded election campaigns, opposition to the death penalty, and support for adoption of the Kyoto Treaty on global warming.

Nader also says he would seek expansion of federal affirmative action laws. His platform claims that affirmative action "should not be based upon quotas'" even though he is in favor of "using race and gender as ... factors ... in evaluating the suitability of an applicant." Nader has also explicitly called for higher taxes on liquor, tobacco, capital gains, high incomes, stock dividends, estates, and corporate income. He would grant immigrants, even illegal immigrants, "all the rights and benefits of American workers."

Nader has also strongly opposed corporate welfare and the so-called "war on drugs." Rather than simply turn over the war on drugs to states, Nader would replace the federal Drug Enforcement Agency with a social agency designed to undermine demand for illegal narcotics and treat addicts.

Nader says he would remove U.S. troops from Iraq and replace them with a "UN-sponsored peacekeeping force"--which would inevitably mean that some U.S. troops would remain in Iraq under UN command.

Michael J. Badnarik

The Libertarian Party presidential candidate won 382,000 votes in 2000, placing fifth. This year the party selected technology trainer Michael J. Badnarik as its standard bearer. Badnarik's running mate is St. Ambrose University Adjunct Instructor Richard V. Campagna. The two are running on familiar Libertarian Party themes: elimination of all federal welfare programs (all of which involve powers not given to the federal government by the U,S. Constitution), elimination of foreign aid, reinstatement of a non-interventionist foreign policy, and support of the right to keep and bear arms. Their platform pledge also includes promises to "eliminate the income tax and operate the federal government on low, uniform, constitutional tariffs and excises."

Badnarik would base his non-interventionist foreign policy on the example of the Founding Fathers. He explains: "Libertarians understand the importance of adhering to the Constitution, because it is designed to limit the power of the state here and abroad. And we especially understand the danger of war, which expands the power of the government far beyond its constitutional limits."

Badnarik stresses that the mess in Iraq has been brought on by the United States' disastrous interventionism. "People in the Middle East do not hate us for our freedom," he points out. "They do not hate ns for our lifestyle. They hate us because we have spent many years attempting to force them to emulate our lifestyle. The U.S. government has meddled in the affairs of the Middle East far too long, always with horrendous results."

Badnarik also takes a number of libertarian positions with which constitutionalists would take issue. Badnarik is for open. virtually unlimited immigration to the United States: "Peaceful immigrants should be allowed to enter the U S. at conveniently located Customs and immigration, stations, subject only to brief vetting to ensure that they are not terrorists or criminals."

Badnarik favors legalized abortion, legalized drugs, and legal sanction of any "marriage" relationship between "partners" of any description: "Like every partnership, marriage should fit the individuals it unites, rather than be a 'one-size-fits-all' proposition defined by those outside the relationship. Each marriage should be what the partners want it to be, no more, no less, Just as anyone can engage in a business relationship, any individuals should be able to enter into a marriage."

In truth, many of the Libertarian Party candidate's libertine positions would not likely be actively pursued because libertarians advocate relegating those issues to the state level, where they belong.

Michael A. Peroutka

The Constitution Party placed sixth in 2000, with party founder Howard Phillips garnering 98,000 votes. This year, Michel A. Peroutka, a Maryland attorney and father of three, has taken up the Constitution Party banner. Peroutka's running mate is Dr. Chuck Baldwin, a Baptist minister and radio talk-show host. Like the Libertarian Party, Peroutka's Constitution Party would eliminate unconstitutional government agencies, from the Department of Health and Human Services to the Department of Agriculture to the Agency for International Development. Peroutka would also propose that Congress run the federal government on tariffs (a tax on imports) and excises and eliminate the income tax.

Peroutka differs from the Libertarian Party on a number of social issues. He is for de-federalization of the war on drugs, but stops short of advocating legalization of narcotics even at the statewide level. Likewise, Peroutka is for de-federalization of abortion law and declares "abortion should be neither funded nor condoned by the federal government no exceptions." He opposes so-called same-sex "marriage," explaining, "Marriage is defined by God, can only exist between a man and a woman, and Godly marriage does not need the approval of any government."

On foreign policy, Peroutka takes a strong non-interventionist position: "The U.S. should get out of the U.N and the U.N. should get out of the U.S." He explains that "America needs and deserves a president who will stand against the entrenched socialism, elitism and globalism which have a stranglehold on American political power. It is clear that both major political parties are committed to the agenda of the New World Order and seek to enforce economic, military and social policies which are antithetical to the interests of our independent Republic.... I will fight to defend America against enemies domestic and foreign and return to a Republic of self-governing states whose laws are rooted in biblical principles."