More news this week from the Battle Creek Enquirer:

U.S. Taxpayer candidate David Horn is not making a serious run for office.

He does not intend on investing in his election efforts before the Nov. 7 election or doing much campaigning.

It's not often that you have a candidate that comes out publicly to say that he doesn't want the job he's running for, so of course this caught my attention. There are, of course, two forgotten candidates for Congress in our 7th District. Robert Hutchinson is the Libertarian nominee for Congress (in 2004, Libertarian Ken Proctor got 3,034 votes, or 1 percent), and David Horn is the U.S. Taxpayers Party nominee. Horn ran for Congress in 2004 as well, earning 9,032 votes, or 3 percent-- many of whom were disaffected Walberg supporters.

The U.S. Taxpayers Party is the state affiliate of the Constitution Party. I'll come back to that in a moment. But first, why won't David Horn campaign for Congress?

"Basically, for anyone to want to vote for me, they'd have to be too Libertarian to vote for Walberg, and too conservative to vote for the Libertarian (Robert Hutchinson)," Horn said. "That's a pretty, pretty narrow focus there."

While Horn doesn't want Democrat Sharon Renier in office, he thinks it would be good if Walberg were elected.

"I'd probably be a Republican if more Republicans thought as he did," Horn said.

Horn said he agrees with Walberg's stances on "probably 90 percent of the issues."

(Emphasis added)

Yes, that's right. David Horn agrees with Tim Walberg on 90 percent of the issues. Or, conversely, one could say that Tim Walberg agrees with the Constitution Party on 90 percent of the issues.

So what do David Horn and the Constitution Party stand for? They say that they support returning to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and a focus on Christian values as the basis for American laws. No Separation of Church and State for these folks. Let's look at a few issues.
Taxes:

I support abolition of the income tax and repeal of the 16^th Amendment. I wish to restore taxation to that prescribed by our Founders: tariffs and excise taxes.

Not quite the same as Tim Walberg, who instead supports a national sales tax. But still, just as constricting and regressive.

How about "family values"?

The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. We are opposed to amending the U.S. Constitution for the purpose of defining marriage.

We reject the notion that sexual offenders are deserving of legal favor or special protection, and affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior. We oppose all efforts to impose a new sexual legal order through the federal court system. We stand against so-called "sexual orientation" and "hate crime" statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression. We oppose government funding of "partner" benefits for unmarried individuals. Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions.

We recognize that parents have the fundamental right and responsibility to nurture, educate, and discipline their children. We oppose the assumption of any of these responsibilities by any governmental agency without the express delegation of the parents or legal due process. We affirm the value of the father and the mother in the home, and we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples.

We affirm both the authority and duty of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all cases of state sodomy laws in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2.

That bit does sound a lot like Tim Walberg, actually.

Then, there's federal spending:

The Constitution assigns all powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people.

Domestic federal "aid" not authorized by the Constitution is not only illegal, it is immoral.

We call upon the states, therefore, to decline to accept all monies from the federal government for any purpose not specifically and clearly articulated in the Constitution, and reject all federal mandates and regulations which are unconstitutional, thus restoring the intended balance of power between the states and their creation, the U.S. Government.

While not exactly what Tim Walberg has said, it has the same tone to it. Walberg and his supporters advocate a small, disengaged government, which does as little as possible for its citizens. The Constitution Party, by the way, also calls for the elimination of the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Services, the gradual elimination of Social Security, and a host of other important government programs.

Feel free to browse the party platform and Horn's issue position. It's interesting, to say the least. Also check out the Wikipedia entry on the party.

And apparently David Horn, Constitution Party candidate, agrees with Tim Walberg on 90 percent of the issues.

To moderates in the Republican Party and Democrats unsure of Renier's chances of winning, I ask that one considers the type of government Tim Walberg and those like him hope to create. Religious intolerance becomes part of the law, government ceases to provide essential services, and state governments struggle to cover the needs of their citizens. True, we have strayed from the original text of the Constitution in some areas-- but then, a lot has changed since 1789. Do you really want to go back to that?

And to those who have been unsure whether to vote for Tim Walberg, a Republican, or David Horn, the U.S. Taxpayers/Constitution Party candidate, I say: go ahead and vote for Horn, the one who you agree with 100 percent of the time. Don't vote for Walberg.

Labels: 2006 Election