November 2nd we all have to make a choice for Senate - twice.  Because of Blago's misinterpretation of the Illinois Constitution, we will be voting for a Senator twice, once to serve roughly 60 days to finish out a term in the current Congress - to be sworn in immediately - and a second time for who will serve a 6 year term. 

Much has been made about the two major party candidates - Mark Kirk and Alexi Giannoulias - and how they are both lackluster candidates.  To me, these are the only two choices we have.  But you might ask, what about the Libertarian candidate Mike Labno, doesn't he fit in with our conservative ideals?

The answer is yes AND no.  Mike Labno and the other Libertarian candidates for Governor/Lt. Governor Lex Green and Ed Rutledge, all talk a good conservative game, but take a look deeper into the Libertarian world, and you will see they don't represent what they say they do. 

For instance, I attended the voter informational meeting in Altamont recently.  In attendance as well was Lex Green, Ed Rutledge, and the Green Party Lt. Governor candidate Don Crawford.  We know the Green Party is an offshoot of the Democrats so we won't waste time discussing them here other than to say this; the Democrats are just as worried about the Green Party taking votes away from them as the Republicans are about the Libertarians. 

Back to the informational forum, Lex Green and Ed Rutledge both got up and spoke about the individual and free market principles.  Lex Green also expounded on "life, liberty, and property" (the original inspiration for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" taken from Thomas Paine's Common Sense) and how the government violates each of these principles.  However, Green also let the cat out of the bag.  He and his running mate know they are not going to win, but they are trying to get just 5% of the vote so they can become an established party.  To me, this nugget and what Green and Rutledge told the crowd is a bit disingenuous.  You see, the Libertarians claim to be pro-life and the alternative to voters looking for a fiscal AND social conservative.  The devil is always in the details. 

On the Libertarian Party of Illinois website, you will not find any reference to pro-life, defense of marriage, illegal immigration, or religion.  Instead, you will find concepts of "honesty, fairness, respect, and compassion".  Nowhere do you find anything about social conservative issues.  For that, you must head over to the National Libertarian Party website .  There you will find that the Libertarian Party does not believe in restricting a woman's right to choose abortion (Platform 1.4), restrictions on whom can marry whom (1.3), restricting the flow of illegal immigration or "migration" as they call it (3.4), or banning drugs (1.2).  Whereas an individual candidate like Mike Labno can say he is pro-life, would he vote against his convictions and principles of "life, liberty, and property' that his party stands for?  I would say he cannot if he wants to remain running on the "party of principle".

At the voter forum, Green went on to explain to the crowd that the Libertarian Party is the "party of principle", which is the same argument supporters of Labno over Kirk throw around.  You would be correct to say that Mark Kirk goes against his party's platform regarding the social issues, but the 800 lb. gorilla in the room is that those who support 3rd party candidates don't like to admit or talk about at parties is that we live in a 2 party system, period.  Second, only in a perfect universe, in a perfect political system will you find a perfect candidate who you agree with 100% of the time. 

Proponents of minor party candidates say that the 2 party domination needs to change because the major parties have failed to deliver on what they promise.  I won't argue with that, but the Tea Parties have accomplished what the minor parties have failed to do - change the major parties (both GOP now, and Democrats after they lose the election).  I can imagine the Libertarian and Constitution Party leaders jumping up and down pulling their hair out on why they haven't been able to draw support from more Tea Partiers and conservatives.  The answer is simple - the voters know we live in a 2 party system.  I've droned on and on about how the 3rd party has messed up elections over history, but I'll just revisit one race in particular.  The 2008 Minnesota Senate race.  Al Frankin won and became the Senator that gave the Democrats their 60 seat super majority in the Senate which allowed them to pass Obamacare.  We blame Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, but the only reason they had the votes they did in the Senate is because the 3rd party crashed the election party in Minnesota thereby handing the election to the Democrats.  And we want this here in Illinois?

Lex Green talked about reaching a certain threshold in order to be labeled as an "established party" which would lower the number of signatures required to appear on the ballot.  The Green Party is struggling this election to reach their threshold vote to keep their "established party" status they obtained in the 2006 election.  The simple fact of the matter is both parties use the 3rd party to their advantage while the minor parties cry about getting petition signatures challenged and tossed off the ballot.  That's politics, and if you can't handle the heat, then get out of the kitchen, yet the same minor party supporters don't have a problem with the signature threshold if their party were to become established.  No calls for a complete elimination of required signatures.  They toss about the idea of paying a fee upfront to get on the ballot instead of signatures, but who is to say what that fee should be or how high or low it should be.  Nobody seems to have an answer for that. 

How do the major parties use the minor parties?  I've already alluded to the fact that Rich Whitney will be taking votes from Gov. Pat Quinn, and LeAnn Jones will take votes from Alexi Giannoulias.  How has Giannoulias countered this threat to his electoral base?  By pitching Mike Labno as the "true fiscal and social conservative" in order to peel votes away from Mark Kirk to aid in his own election bid.  And if the Libertarians become established, then the GOP will always have to to worry about losing votes to the Libertarians as the Democrats lose votes to the Green Party.  Amazing how that works, isn't it? 

Another argument I hear from minor party supporters is that they are tired of having to swallow their principles and vote for a candidate they don't agree with - again - after being told to do the same thing in previous elections.  I have that problem too but sometimes patience pays off.  Look at Bill Brady as an example.  How long has it been that we've had a fiscal AND social conservative running for Governor and who at this point in the game, seems likely to win?  We've been told time and again that a conservative cannot win statewide office.  Hopefully, November 2nd will prove that line of thought wrong. 

Let's go further down the rabbit hole.  Are the "principles first" conservative voters going to hold out their vote for Dan Rutherford?  Judy Baar Topinka?  Robert Enriquez?  Steve Kim?  Those are the choices because the alternative Democrat candidates are part of the "party of death" and represent the very fiscal policies that have destroyed Illinois and our national economy as a whole.  Besides Brady, Steve Kim might be the only other "true conservative" on the GOP ballot.  Will the "principles first" voters vote for Bill Brady, then Mike Labno, maybe Steve Kim and leave the rest of the ballot blank?  Funny how "principles first" gets eroded as we move across the entire ballot.  But "principles first" voters are going to take a stand on the Kirk-Giannoualias race.  But hey, "we stood on our principles".  Martyrdom is a lonely business.  If Giannoulias wins because of the Labno supporters, then I guarantee for 6 years you will hear me rip them for putting Durbin Jr. in office just as the 3rd party in Minnesota allowed the clown Al Frankin to go to the Senate. 

Like it or not, you have a choice between two candidates for Senate on November 2nd - Mark Kirk or Alexi Giannoulias.  I wish we had an Angle, Rubio, Lee, Paul, or Toomey to vote into the Senate, but we don't.  Kirk is far from perfect, but I'll take him over Giannoulias any day of the week and twice on Sunday.  Let's get straight to the point.  A vote for Labno is a vote for Giannoulias, plain and simple.  To think otherwise is living outside of reality of politics or elsewhere.