Third Parties on Right Could Be Problem for Bush

Reuters ^ | 6/21/04 | Rolando Garcia

[jmc813]

Third Party voting only works in the primaries. This is how it works. Say that the Democrats get 35% of the vote, the Communists get 2% of the vote, the Socialist Worker's Party gets 3% of the vote, the Greens get 6% of the vote, and the Libertarians get 2% of the vote. Then, in the general election, the Democratic candidate can look at the primary election results and say: "Gee. 13% of my important constituents feel really strongly about moral-liberal issues, so therefore I will alter my message accordingly in the general election!"

That entire post made no sense whatsoever.

[freeeee]

The time for "sending a message" to the Republican party is over - that was the primary.

The primary is an infomercial and the candidate is already picked by powerful party insiders before the door opens.

Protest outside, and get beaten and arrested.

This leaves only one effective method for conveying a message...

[WhiteGuy]

1. The author has a point.
2. Consider the "fed-up" voters who will stay home.
3. Consider the Howard Stern factor.

Apply all of the above to half a dozen "battleground states" and 2004 becomes a little too close to call........

[WhiteGuy]

"...there won't be constitution to tear down, it will be shredded by a Chief Justice Mario Cuomo first and then the islamofascists who Kerry will coddle."

I've got to ask,

If the democrats (the minority party) can prevent bush's federal court nominees from being confirmed, why couldn't the republicans do the same to a democrat president's nominees?

I think you're exaggerating.

[Dane]

If the democrats (the minority party) can prevent bush's federal court nominees from being confirmed, why couldn't the republicans do the same to a democrat president's nominees?

I think you're exaggerating

The Pubbies don't have a sycophant media behind them, but you already knew that, and still you asked the question that you already knew the answer to.

You should really apply to the John Edwards school of law.

JMO, you would do very well there.

[WhiteGuy]

Seriously,

What would prevent the republicans from blocking a democrat's nominees?



I guess I DO indeed know the answer.

Nothing

[Dane]

Seriously,

What would prevent the republicans from blocking a democrat's nominees?

Well actually the precedant hasn't been set yet towards SCOTUS nominees.

Every SCOTUS nominee for the last 217 years has had a vote in the full Senate. The minority party(on each side) haven't tried that yet, but why don't you help the majority(Currently Pubbies) so that doesn't have to happen, instead of focusing on minutae that only basically concerns you.

[jmc813]

And THE worst RINO,in S.C.,is Ron Paul

Errrr, Ron Paul's from Texas, darling.

[Frohickey]

You're pretty arrogant to assume that YOU are the principled one and everyone who votes for Bush is unprincipled.

You can vote for your principles. No one is teling you to vote otherwise. I'm not the one saying that conservatives ought to vote for Bush, or else they are voting for Kerry.

Don't get on your high horse trying to tell me the ramifications of my vote. :(

[WhiteGuy]

Actually, I was only focusing on your prediction of mario cooomo as chief justice. A little bit over the top, JMO.

But, it appears that we DO agree that a majority gop senate could in fact prevent the appointment of liberal judges and justices.

[NonValueAdded]

And the message "President Kerry" means what?

[freeeee]

And the message "President Kerry" means what?

1. We're done playing "good cop/bad cop".

2. If you'd like to keep your job, you'll clean up your act.

I'm not wild about any Democrats winning office, but if you have any better ideas I'd like to hear them.

[anonymous86]

I met Michael Peroutka! I was an usher and ticket-taker at "America's Call to Honor God," where he campaigned. He's a great man, and if he did take office, America would be back to the way it was founded, like that! We'd roll back nearly a CENTURY of government largesse. The Constitution Party is, indeed, nearly identical to the freerepublic.com platform. I think Bush and Kerry are nearly two peas in a pod, so I'm voting for Michael.