Calling For a Straw Man Candidate to Enter the Presidential Race

I’ve never been a big fan of third-party candidates running for president. I tend to believe that if voters are unhappy with both major parties, there’s a productive way to change that. They can work to bring the party they’re ideologically closest to over to their way of thinking. The Tea Party, for example, did this successfully in 2010 by electing fiscally conservative candidates into office. The result was the Republican take-over of the House of Representatives. The other alternative, of course, is to vote for a Ross Perot, a Ralph Nader, or a Gary Johnson out of pure principal. The problem with that, however, is that the vote gets split between common ideologies and the benefactor ends up being the candidate most feared by the voters who supported the third-party candidate.

This year, however, I’m willing to make an exception. A third-party candidate might actually add some clarity to the race. I often hear or read of people complaining that there just isn’t much difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. For those people who want a truly unique party that offers truly unique positions, I think there’s one out there that just might deserve some attention.

After all, it seems that President Obama has been dead set on running against this party for about four years now. I’m talking about a party he seems to rake over the coals at every opportunity. Just last week as a matter of fact, he accused these people of holding some sort of animosity toward bridges and roads, and chastised them for thinking they are smarter and work harder than those who don’t own their own businesses. The interesting thing about this party is that they have yet to push back against the president’s criticism of them. They’ve remained utterly silent in their own defense.

I’m talking, of course, about the Straw Man party… and I think it’s time they enter the race.

You see, the Straw Man party really seems to be the people that President Obama has the biggest problem with – not so much Mitt Romney and the Republicans. The president speaks out against the Straw Men at numerous events and he apparently despises them so much that he won’t even give them the satisfaction of calling them by their name. Instead, he typically refers to them as “Some people” or “There are those who”.

For example, President Obama says things like, “There are those out there who want us to go down the same old path — the path where we just throw up our hands and say, ‘We can’t do anything about education. It’s too hard. We can’t do anything about health care — it’s too tough.'”

You see, that’s a unique position if there ever was one. I can’t say as though I’ve ever heard ANYONE say that our country can’t do anything about education and health care because it’s “too hard”. I want to hear more about this from the Straw Men, and I want to know if they’re really that lazy or if there’s some genius idea behind their proclaimed laziness.

President Obama speaks before auto-industry employees like those at General Motors, and tells them, “There are some who see this pain and suggest that somehow it’s inevitable — that the only way for America to get ahead is for communities like yours to be left behind.”

That’s another interesting take. I’d like to hear the logic behind the belief that our country can’t move forward unless General Motors closes its doors. I’ve certainly never heard that viewpoint. Obviously, that viewpoint has to exist. Otherwise, President Obama wouldn’t say such a thing. Right? In the interest of the marketplace of ideas, I want to hear the Straw Man party elaborate on this.

When talking about how to address our economic problems, the president has said things like, “There seems to be a set of folks who — I don’t doubt their sincerity — who just believe that we should do nothing.”

Nothing? Now that’s a gutsy approach! There have been a plethora of suggestions coming out of Washington over the past four years aimed at increasing U.S. economic growth and creating jobs. They’ve ranged from the president’s failed stimulus program to tax reform, tax cuts, reduced federal spending, entitlement reform, etc. So, the “do nothing” approach is certainly interesting. Let’s hear more about it from the Straw Man candidate at the presidential debates!

I want to hear the Straw Man party defend and articulate all of the ideas that President Obama has told us they have, including why they want to raise taxes on the middle class, why they don’t want women to have contraceptives, why they like “gas guzzling cars”, why they want to take away social security benefits for senior citizens, why they want to harass Hispanics in Arizona for taking their kids out for ice cream, why they want women to earn less money than men, why they don’t want poor people to have access to healthcare, why they’re complaining about “how fast” the president is cleaning up the economy, why they don’t want the president to discuss the Middle East with students in Istanbul, why they embrace an economic strategy of “anything goes”, why they insist that people be “defined by their differences”, and why they are “anti-Science”.

When there’s a party out there that has such radically different viewpoints from a president whose approval rating is underwater, I think they deserve a national platform! It’s clear that voters want a definitive choice, so it just doesn’t seem right for the Straw Man party to just sit on the sidelines during the 2012 election.

Really, President Obama should want the Straw Men to enter the race. Otherwise, all of the talking-points he’s used against them over the past four years might come across as nonsensical. Well, that is unless he tries to apply them to Mitt Romney and the Republicans instead. But he surely wouldn’t do that, would he? That would be dishonest and would really only have a chance of working if he had the national media committed to his re-election.

It’s a good thing we don’t have to worry about that happening, right?

Author Bio:

John Daly couldn't have cared less about world events and politics until the horrific 9/11 terrorist attacks changed his perspective. Since then, he's been deeply engaged in the news of the day with a particular interest in how that news is presented. Realizing the importance of the media in a free, democratic society, John has long felt compelled to identify media injustices when he sees them. With a B.S. in Business Administration (Computer Information Systems), and a 16 year background in software and web development, John has found that his real passion is for writing. He is the author of the Sean Coleman Thriller series, which is available through all major retailers. John lives in Northern Colorado with his wife and two children. Like John on Facebook. Follow John on Twitter.
Author website:
  • Bob Weber

    John, great post, one of your best.  I’m going to share this.

    • John Daly


  • James King

    John, I like your column very much, and it made me think seriously about my own vote which has been Libertarian Party for 40 years. This was after I discovered Ayn Rand and Objectivism. But this year I won’t be voting for Gary Johnson, even though he is the only candidate who is for the Constitution. That is because defeating Obama is so important. But I will probably be back in the Libertarian fold next time if I’m still alive, and I may not be since I am 73.

    If Romney wins and then becomes libertarian and, like Johnson, balances the budget the first year, well then, I will vote to re-elect him. But that won’t happen, and the main reason I will vote for Romney in this election is to slow the head-long march into a Marxist State.

    Ayn Rand wrote: “The difference between a Welfare State and a Totalitarian State is a matter of time.” I regard her as the second greatest American behind Washington. And I believe that if she had lived in Washington’s time and been treated as an equal by all of the men, she would have made sure that mistakes in the Constitution would never have taken place. This would have assured that TR, Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Bush and Obama would never have occurred.

    That is obviously speculation on my part, but I believe it would have happened and we would not be so concerned this year. I also believe that Chief Justice Marshall would not have said, “it is the job of the Supreme Court to say what the law is.” And even though I support the decision of a woman to have an abortion, it would not have been regarded as a Constitutional Right because it clearly is not.

    I think a lot of things as it regards Rand, but that’s all I’ll say for now. But I liked your column very much.  

    • John Daly

      I definitely have respect for the libertarian ideology, though I probably have different ideas on foreign policy and public safety issues.

      I’m glad my column made an impression.

  • Paul Courtney

    John:  I agree with Art, a clever piece, finished with a flourish.  The main reason Obama gets away with this is a press that has decided it knows better than we do what’s good for us.  As for the Straw Man party, it obviously hasn’t yet been to Oz, it has no brain.  (I know that joke doesn’t quite work, but wanted to try it out anyway-thanks).

    • John Daly

      Thanks. The president certainly isn’t the first person to throw out Straw Man arguments, but the frequency of which he does it is breathtaking. Very rarely is he ever campaigning against legitimate viewpoints.

  • Artlouis

    Clever piece.  Rather than call it the Straw Man party,  however, I would suggest the Some Folks party. Whenever Obama starts a sentence with “Some folks,” a long stream of disingenuous mayhem ensues.

    • John Daly

      ‘Some Folks’ is a good way to put it. The only problem is that no one can seem to find ANY of those folks. 😉