"A mere 7% of Americans say they are satisfied with the way things are going in the United States, the lowest satisfaction reading in Gallup history," claimed a recent Gallup poll.

Democrats have had control of the Congress for the past two years (and, remember, the majority of them went along with the Great Bilking Bailout of '08, and have done nothing to repeal police state laws passed in the wake of 9/11), while the Republican Bush administration has used the White House to put the Constitution in a choke hold for almost eight years straight.

If the country is in such bad shape, then why are most Americans turning back to the same snake oil from many of the same party incumbents who abetted the mess to begin with?

One foreign news organization, looking at the United States as a visitor, zeroed in on part of the problem: "It's difficult to gauge the support for third-party candidates. They are rarely included in major polls."

With the spread of the freedom movement, as evidenced by the success and popularity of Ron Paul’s presidential campaign during the primaries, one would expect third party candidates to at least attract the attention of a sizeable portion of the populace disgusted with the country's national, state, and local leadership. Dr. Paul's dedication to constitutional principles and message have resonated with people across all parties. And his constitutional voting record has smoothed the way for others who espouse similar philosophies and have the same dedication.

In some areas of the country, candidates from other parties are getting attention, a lack of "major poll" coverage notwithstanding. Consider "U.S. Senate candidate David Brownlow," who is running on the Constitution Party ticket in Oregon, and who "doesn't have any TV advertising, didn't participate in the debates and isn't accepting campaign donations." Even with modest exposure such as that, Brownlow is still expected to get eight percent of the vote in his race.

If he didn't participate in the debates, was that by his choice, or because he was not invited to, as was the case with the presidential election and third party candidates?

Other up-and-coming candidates across the country from other parties are reaping the benefits of this new-found constitutional emphasis and dissatisfaction with the status quo.

One example of this is Pennsylvania's 16th District congressional race, where there are four viable candidates.

The seventh-term incumbent, Joseph Pitts, had the good sense to vote against the $700 bailout, but defended current trade laws such as NAFTA, which have ruined the once proudly blue-collar manufacturing industry in Pennsylvania. Pitts, a 68-year-old Republican, has already raised $560,237 for the race. His district encompasses the western suburbs of Philadelphia and the rural sections of Lancaster.

Pitts’ website notes that he is “focusing in particular on issues facing Burma, Pakistan, Kashmir, Western Sahara, Central Asia and Afghanistan.“ Pitts stated, "I am a free trader and believe that free trade helps our nation and the nations of the world."

Democrat Bruce A. Slater, 52, a self-employed restoration contractor from Salisbury Township, Lancaster County, said Pitts was among the House members who deregulated the banking industry, which caused the present crisis.

Independent candidate John Murphy said that both of the major parties were corporate-owned, and the only people who supported NAFTA were politicians who were backed by corporations. He believes that the cause of the current economic crisis was allowing corporations free reign.

Dan Frank, congressional candidate for the Constitution Party, was reported to have brandished a copy of the U.S. Constitution and told the audience, “I will be beholden to my oath of office... I will take this document extremely seriously; never vote against this document."

The 48-year-old Frank, who describes himself as a “normal, all-American” guy, who likes muscle cars and lives in Ephrata Township, is an information technology specialist. He said Congress created the problems by passing laws that send jobs overseas and bring in foreign workers.

Frank, who laments the loss of American manufacturing jobs to those “nations of the world,” describes his opponent Pitts as “a career politician that has sold out to global interests. He does not uphold his oath to the U.S. Constitution; in fact he couldn't even keep his pledge to serve only 10 years.”

Frank while committed to saving American jobs by withdrawing from the WTO, NAFTA, and CAFTA, is also for securing our borders, stopping corporate welfare, ending foreign oil dependence, and ending foreign aid, as good stop measures for the current crisis. (Frank lists, among his favorite reading material, The Creature from Jekyll Island and The New American magazine, which helps to explain his views on monetary policy and foreign policy.)

With a district that cast 22 percent of votes for Ron Paul in the spring primary, Frank is working to tap into an already well-informed and  expanding pro-constitutional base. “As word gets out, we are getting more support for our campaign,” says Frank.

Win or lose, Dan Frank is already making plans to run again in 2010.

The John Birch Society, as always, does not support or endorse any political candidate. JBS educates the public, and then the voters solve the problem at the ballot box, and more importantly, hold their representatives accountable to the Constitution and to principles of good government while in office.

Americans who want choices other than the big government-loving media-anointed candidates served up to them every election need to force the two party system to be opened up to all candidates and let the voting chips fall where they may.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

Write comment

This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.