Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vote for Peroutka or Badnarik?
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | November 1, 2004 | David Kupelian

Posted on 11/01/2004 9:16:28 AM PST by SeasideSparrow

Dear third-party voter,

A tragedy is about to occur.

I am not talking about the tragedy, the unthinkable calamity that will befall America should John Kerry be elected president of the United States. That a person with a history of actual treason should become commander in chief of America's armed forces during wartime is more bizarre and terrifying than any "Manchurian Candidate" scenario Hollywood could concoct.

No, I'm referring to a different tragedy. The tragedy that idealistic, patriotic, constitutionally minded Christian Americans very possibly will be the ones that actually turn over this nation to Kerry – a man who opposes, and is intent on destroying, every one of their most cherished values.

How could this be?

By most accounts, the presidential race is a dead heat. The fact is, several swing states in the 2000 election were settled by just a few thousand votes. This time around the race looks every bit as close – so every single vote counts.

My friends, the hour is late and the stakes high, so let me just say it straight:

A vote for Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party, or for the Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik – regardless of whatever personal virtues they possess, or those of their party's platform – amounts to a vote for Kerry. After all the high-sounding words have been spoken in justification of voting for either one, this is the undeniable fact that remains. It's the most basic mathematics possible, so I won't insult anyone by explaining it.

Furthermore, the "lesser of two evils" argument that I've heard 1,000 times – usually stated as "voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil" – is shallow and unworthy of those good folks who hold the Constitution and Judeo-Christian heritage so dear. This view, with its emphasis on personally choosing not to support any evil whatsoever, is held largely by religious people, mostly Christians.

But every Christian also knows he or she is a sinner – in a word, evil. Not totally evil, of course, but every human being – including you, me, Bush, Kerry, Peroutka, Badnarik and everyone else – has got a problem with evil. It's only the degree that is different from person to person.

If Bush is truly "the lesser of two evils" – which, put another way, means he is the greater good – then it's indefensible to vote for anyone else than Bush, since that would unquestionably help Kerry – the greater evil.

Let me restate this: If the object of your vote is to avoid supporting evil – and yet by your vote you end of electing the worst possible choice as president when you had it easily within your power to choose a better man – then you have indeed supported evil.

One of the many people who responded to my column on "Voting your conscience" informed me that by voting for Bush instead of Peroutka, I was operating from fear and not faith. We should just vote our consciences, he said (in this case, he was suggesting a vote for the Constitution Party candidate), and leave the outcome to God.

This is a mis-applied principle. Yes, we're meant to live righteously and not be overly concerned with the result. That means we're meant to speak the truth even if it makes us unpopular. We're meant to do the right thing, even if we lose a seeming advantage, even if it hurts, even if we lose our job. This is living from faith and leaving the outcome to God.

But when we have a clear choice between a better option and a worse option, and millions of lives will be affected by our choice, God doesn't require that we do the impossible and make a third option win out. Getting Peroutka or Badnarik elected president is impossible.

What God does hold us responsible for is to do the right thing, to act with wisdom. If America can have a safer nation with a more decent president – or be more endangered with an unprincipled, ambitious sociopath as president – and if we, you and I, are the ones who choose that president tomorrow, then we have a responsibility to choose the better man.

Not to do so will be a tragedy we will remember for the rest of our lives.

This is not an ordinary election. We are at war. That's not a metaphor, as Kerry's campaign says, but rather a real war. Millions of lives are at stake. America's security is at stake. The Supreme Court, America's sovereignty as an independent nation, the lives of the unborn, the sanctity of marriage, freedom of the press – all are at stake in this election.

As we reported in our special "REVOLT ON THE RIGHT" edition of Whistleblower magazine, there have been many times in American history when a robust third-party bid for the presidency has had a powerful and meaningful effect on the course of the nation. But tomorrow is not one of those times. Tomorrow is a time for good people to come together to stop a major evil from descending on this country.

In the last few days, Patrick Buchanan, who ran against Bush four years ago on a third-party ticket, urged Americans to vote this time for Bush. Why?

Likewise, WND's founder and CEO Joseph Farah – who did not support Bush in 2000, who has said for years he would be unable to support Bush in 2004, and who has been very favorable toward third parties – recently changed his mind and endorsed Bush over Kerry. Why?

Even Dr. John Hospers, America's first Libertarian Party presidential candidate, has urged Libertarians not to vote for their own party's candidate, but rather to vote for Bush. Why?

I'll tell you why. Because they realize what is truly at stake in this election. Do you?

Sincerely,

David Kupelian


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: badnarik; constitutionparty; libertarianparty; peroutka
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-234 next last

1 posted on 11/01/2004 9:16:29 AM PST by SeasideSparrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeasideSparrow

If our current congress didn't spend us so far into debt..

(added 2 trillion to national debt to chinese and japanese)

people like me wouldn't have to contemplate voting Badnarik

what happened to fiscal and global conservatives...


2 posted on 11/01/2004 9:21:03 AM PST by ReadTheFinePrint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeasideSparrow
Great article and right on the money. We are in an intense political battle right now in this country. There are two sides in this battle. Pick a side. Influence that side. But by picking one of this idiotic losing parties, you have ceded your right to make a real decision about this election! Pick a side!
3 posted on 11/01/2004 9:21:08 AM PST by GmbyMan ("Government is not the solution to the problems we face! Government is the PROBLEM!!!"-Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeasideSparrow

I could not agree more. Supporting a right-leaning third party candidate in this election is INSANE. Period.


4 posted on 11/01/2004 9:21:37 AM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReadTheFinePrint

Oh please, do you actually believe that a vote whose consequence is to increase Kerry's chance of election is a step in the RIGHT direction?

Not a chance.

The goal is to MOVE the government in your direction, not just stand there and whine about it, or even worse, contribute to its continued decline.


5 posted on 11/01/2004 9:23:12 AM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeasideSparrow

I won't vote. I will not take an active part in getting Kerry or Bush made president.


6 posted on 11/01/2004 9:25:26 AM PST by stuartcr (Neither - Nor in '04....Who ya gonna hate in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GmbyMan
I pick a side every time I vote. I pick MY side.

I am SOOOOOOOOO tired of hearing that a vote for a third party is a vote for the Democrats.

BS!

Vote your conscience.

If enough people did that maybe we wouldn't have to vote for a, "lesser of two evils."

7 posted on 11/01/2004 9:27:18 AM PST by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeasideSparrow

I posted this on another thread. Someone had posted an e-mail they had received from the Constitution Party. It bears repeating here:

A vote for Bush will add to the popular vote total nationwide. It is important to show the left that the United State's citizens mean business and a large majority will show them that their time is past and the patriot/citizen have spoken. Do not under any circumstances vote for a third party candidate your vote for Bush is still important and does count regardless.


8 posted on 11/01/2004 9:27:52 AM PST by MKM1960
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeasideSparrow

One other commentary from WorldNetDaily's Managing Editor:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39766

Voting your conscience
this November

Posted: August 3, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern



By David Kupelian

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

Many Christians, conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, constitutionalists, patriotic independents and other traditionalists are grappling mightily with how to vote in the upcoming election.

Some regard George W. Bush and John F. Kerry as equally unacceptable choices. They see the two major political parties as so close – "not a dime's worth of difference" as George Wallace used to say – as to make a third-party choice the only valid one. After all, they say, "Voting for the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil."


Others plead that the "lesser of two evils" is also by definition the greater good, and that no matter what the mistakes and imperfections of George W. Bush and his administration, it's light years better than the wholesale betrayal America would experience during a Kerry administration.

But many conscience-driven, traditionally minded Americans are conflicted over this choice. They're fearful that the Republican Party in its current state is incapable of restoring America to its long-abandoned constitutional framework, but also worried that voting for a third-party candidate more to their liking would hand the presidency, and America's future, over to Kerry. Let's take a closer look.

War

Right now, the world's only superpower is engaged in not one, but two wars – each of them to the death – though most Americans appear oblivious to both.

One is a war against an external enemy, while the other rages within our own borders and among our own people.

The outside war is with radical Islam. Yes, it's a clash of civilizations. Yes, the militant strain of Islam metastasizing around the world today is an evil, murderous, mind-control cult – the successor to communism as the latest totalitarian movement bent on world domination. And yes, this isn't a result of the Iraq war. Remember, demon-possessed jihadists gleefully flew jumbo jets full of innocent people into large buildings filled with many more innocent people, dooming thousands to a fiery death, long before we invaded Iraq.

In any event, the dream that we can just go home, get out of the Middle East, is a fantasy. We were attacked on our own soil. We have no choice but to take the battle to the enemy. We must be strong and resolute – from now on, and forever after. One al-Qaida leader said recently that they must kill 4 million Americans "as a prerequisite to any Islamic victory."

OK, what's the second war? America's new civil war, ultimately even more dangerous than the war on terror, is a death-struggle over the very soul and identity of the country. On one side of the battlefield are arrayed those who hold sacred everything upon which America's greatness and prosperity were founded. On the other side are those who reject thousands of years of proven Judeo-Christian principles. They seek to expunge every vestige of God from American law and culture, while laboring to re-define man, marriage and morality to reflect their own selfish fantasies and addictions, their desire for power, and their alien worldview.

Think I'm exaggerating?

Tiny case in point: Do you remember, immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, when our nation was wracked in profound shock and grief, when tears and heartache and memorials bloomed on every corner? Well, Breen Elementary School in Rocklin, Calif., joined in, displaying on its marquee a simple, heart-felt message of comfort – "God Bless America" – in honor of the 3,000 Americans consumed in the jihadists' orgy of destruction.

The American Civil Liberty Union's response? It threatened legal action, demanding that the sign "must be replaced immediately," calling it a "clear violation of the California and United States constitutions, as well as the California Education Code."

That's one example. You know and I know this column could be filled to overflowing with similar examples of people and organizations operating under the banner of American freedom, doing their utmost to destroy that very freedom.

No doubt about it, America is plagued by an "enemy within" as well as the jihadist "enemy without."

So, what kind of people do we have in America these days to fight these wars?

About half of the country's voters are so profoundly confused and/or corrupted that they voted for Bill Clinton, voted for Al Gore, and will vote for John Kerry – all three of whom are pathological liars.

Thanks to the powerful Matrix-like conditioning of the modern media culture in which we all grow up – it's the "water" we "fish" swim in – tens of millions of Americans are living in a trance state of some sort. That is, they see evil and think it's good; they see good and think it's evil.

They listen to a good leader and cynically conclude he's either stupid, insincere or dangerous. This, by the way, is precisely how the establishment press regarded Ronald Reagan while he was president.

On the other hand, these types hear a politician or minister who is obviously insincere, smarmy and illogical, and to him they give their allegiance. You see, such a "leader" is just like they are on the inside. The clueless followers live in denial, they are "enemies" of their own conscience, and such a clueless "leader" supports their unconscious rebellion against reality. Any truly honest and righteous leader, on the other hand, makes them uncomfortable, as he represents on the outside the conscience they are escaping from on the inside.

And so, the forces of corruption in America – in both leadership and constituency – are very powerful today. In fact, they dominate the cultural and policy landscape.

Chief among the "hypnotists" of our culture is the press, the filter through which most people experience world events, as well as the entertainment media, through which they experience culture. Both of these – with occasional exceptions on the news side in the Internet, talk radio and some cable TV, and on the entertainment side with figures like Mel Gibson – are profoundly at odds with everything America stands for.

Therefore, our very sense of reality is skewed. We live in a virtual-reality Matrix created by our "communications" media, which don't actually communicate reality accurately, but rather re-create their own reality, apart from the real one. If issues like abortion and the "gay-rights" agenda were reported accurately, fully and courageously, those issues would long ago have been history – just like slavery.

The entertainment media? Between the government school system and Hollywood, millions of America's youths have been shaped into pathetic shadows of the noble, beautiful young men and women they were meant to be.

Thus, the news and entertainment media are the primary corrupters of American civilization, and the hottest spots in Hell are, in my humblest opinion, reserved for them.

How can America survive all this? And what will it take to bring America back?

Many thought 9-11 had done the trick. There was a temporary resurgence of patriotism and love of country. But then, even the worst scoundrels can be united by a common enemy. It didn't last – America doesn't even know it's at war anymore. Many have become so corrupted that they're permanently on the wrong side.

Fighting back

While the great "unwashed masses" float along, caught up with their sports, entertainment, sex, drugs, Internet pornography and many other distractions, there are forces on the good side fighting for the restoration of America's soul.

The entire homeschooling movement is raising a generation that remembers America's historical and spiritual roots. Traditionally oriented religious, cultural and policy organizations are championing the Judeo-Christian values that literally form the substance of Western Civilization. Public-interest law firms fight the good fight against the nation's activist judges and anti-God interest groups. Pro-life individuals and organizations open their homes to unwed mothers needing a place to go. Millions of adults and youths in the Boy Scouts of America pursue the high ideals of yesteryear's national greatness.

Want to know how America's cultural war will really be won? I'll give you my answer right now: If, guided by the Living God of wisdom, you fight for what is right, no matter what – you'll win your soul and those of your family. And if everyone and everything else goes to Hell and the battle is lost, you still will have won. But if enough of these battles are fought valiantly, the country as a whole will be transformed – just as it has been transformed by evil not all at once, but little by little by little.

You can have the real America in your home. You can post the Ten Commandments. You can pray in your home school. You can pledge allegiance "Under God." That's where it all started, in the "home churches" of England, whose members later traveled to Holland and ultimately to "the new world" – America – for freedom. And that is how freedom will be reborn.

Freedom is not, as most today believe, the liberty to do anything you want, no matter how immoral or destructive. True freedom is the privilege of being obedient to God, so you can be saved from the tyranny of Hell. ("Those who will not be governed by God, will be ruled by tyrants," said William Penn.) Man is by his very nature obedient – either to Heaven or Hell. And so the "freedom" being worshiped today – even the freedom enshrined by Libertarians – is a lie. You can never worship liberty instead of God and remain free.

Thus, freedom is not a top-down thing. Your president can't give it to you. You have to recognize the divine paradox that freedom means obedience (to God), while today's re-defined "freedom" to go to Hell any way you like, is also obedience – to the unseen forces of darkness. In other words, slavery.

"OK, that's all fine," you say, "but what about the president and the election? How come it's taking so long to get to that?"

Hang on, I'm getting there.

We first need to realize fully that millions of Americans are incapable of discerning truth from falsehood. They watch Bill Clinton talk and are hypnotized by his charm and charisma, and they like him – and forget everything he did for eight years to destroy their country.

Did you know that, for the last generation, virtually all marketing and advertising have been based on stimulating feelings and emotions, rather than appealing to reason and logic? We've been conditioned to respond primarily emotionally to everything. Thus, Bill Clinton could wreak havoc on America for eight years, destroy our intelligence apparatus, undermine the FBI's mission, give secret weapons technology to Communist China in return for campaign cash, set the stage for 9-11, then loot the White House on the way out the door – and still be loved by millions of Americans. Hillary could still be elected to represent in the United States Senate a state she's not even from. Bill could emerge as an absurdly popular – nay, worshipped – ex-president.

Like Clinton, John Kerry is a sociopath – that is, instead of his words and deeds orbiting around conscience, which in turn revolves around God, they revolve instead around personal ambition. Kerry is a liar, pure and simple. He says whatever he and his advisers calculate will make the largest number of people in any particular audience like him and want to vote for him. His past is full of flagrant contractions and flip-flops on crucial issues. But all this means nothing to many Americans.

You see, the past makes no difference – lies, contradictions, treachery, even criminality. Too many Americans have no memory for these things. All that counts is the way they connect emotionally to what they are exposed to in the present – it's all about how someone can make you feel. Thus does a charismatic liar win many hearts.

Compromised Republicans

The Democrat Party is the party of throwing away thousands of years of Western Civilization, of throwing away the Ten Commandments, of throwing away traditional morality. It is the party of man being his own God.

So what about the Republican Party?

Well, if you go by their platform, there is a dramatic difference between the Republican and Democrat parties. But using the more reality-based standard – not of what people say, but of what they do – it becomes immediately evident that the Republicans also have been profoundly compromised. If the Democrat Party is totally possessed by evil, then you might say the Republican Party is half possessed by evil, and half still good.

But before we divorce ourselves from the Republicans, take a moment to realize that your own churches – yes, I'm talking about the big, mainstream Protestant denominations, as well as the Catholic Church – have also become just as "half possessed by evil" as the Republican Party. If that statement shocks you – good, it's about time you woke up. Episcopal ordination of homosexual priests, the archbishop of Canterbury (head of the Anglican Church) praising a new Bible that encourages fornication and homosexuality, the Presbyterian Church USA divesting from Israel as though it were a terrorist pariah state, the clergy sex scandal that has rocked the Catholic Church to the highest levels – these are in many ways more grotesque and profane desecrations of founding principles than those of today's Republican Party.

If you disavow the Republican Party, just make sure you're holding your church to the same standard.

Moving on. Very simply, while you're fighting the real fight for America – the bottom-up fight I talked about – in your family, in your child's education, with your cultural choices, with what you support and don't support – at the same time, do the sensible thing at election time. Although the real America can be restored only from the ground up, when it comes to electing representatives to public office, it doesn't make sense to vote for someone who's not in the race.

The race is not between those whose names appear on the ballot, but rather is between those who actually have any chance of winning. Nobody reading these words can reasonably believe that anybody other than George W. Bush or John F. Kerry will be president next January. And we, you and me, have the power to decide which of these two will be the "father of our country" for the next four years.

Father of our country?

A lot could be said about how Kerry would dramatically accelerate America's loss of national sovereignty in favor of global governance, how he would stack the federal and supreme courts with liberal activist judges, consolidate homosexual marriage into the mainstream, further entrench abortion on demand, betray America's military and much more bad stuff. Without doubt, as president, Kerry would advance the cause of evil and ultimately multiply the suffering and death of innocents.

But beyond his role as chief executive and commander in chief, the president is also, in effect, the father of our country while he is in office. This is more of a spiritual role. The father of a family, including our national family, is like the sun in the sky. It quietly radiates 24x7, and invisibly, imperceptibly, shapes life on this planet. The outpouring of love for Ronald Reagan the nation experienced during his funeral week was a testimony to the powerful role every president of the United States has as a sort of father, a role entrusted to him for a period of time.

As Rev. Jesse Peterson, founder of the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny, put it: "Ronald Wilson Reagan was America's dad. America and the world owe a debt of gratitude to this man." Reagan's outlook, his disposition, his faith – they affected America just as much as his policy initiatives and political leadership.

Bill Clinton was a bad dad. He led a generation of 12-, 13-, 14-year-old young people into an obsession with sexual experimentation. "If it was good enough for the president of the United States and Monica Lewinsky, it's good enough for me" was a message that resonated powerfully in the vulnerable souls of millions of America's precious youths. He corrupted a generation. But not through any executive order he issued or legislation he championed, just through being what he was and doing what he did – as president.

Even though I prefer the platform – just words, ultimately, as all platforms are – of the Constitution Party, I'm supporting George W. Bush for president because I believe that by re-electing him America is more likely to be free in 2008 and 2012 – or at least free enough for there still to be a fighting chance to restore America to a moral, constitutional, Judeo-Christian framework. Otherwise, by the time the Libertarian or Constitution or other party is strong enough to win in four, eight or 12 years – if they ever are – there will be nothing left of our country. It will be too late.

Chuck Colson, once at the right hand of the highest power in the land – and who later, while serving his Watergate prison sentence, discovered One much more powerful, and has served Him ever since – had this to say recently on the subject of voting for the "lesser of two evils":


So why don't Christians vote? Father Frank Pavone, co-founder of Priests for Life, answers that some religious leaders are telling people not to vote! He explains, "Some Christians feel it is more righteous not to vote when the slate of candidates isn't that great. They feel compromised, dirty, or even sinful by casting a ballot for someone with whom they disagree."

Pavone continues, "When you are faced with two candidates, neither of whom is perfect ... but one of whom is clearly closer in his or her convictions to the Gospel than any other, it is perfectly legitimate to vote for the better one." Government is God's ordained instrument for restraining evil and sin. If one would do a better job, we're bound to vote for that person.

But isn't that a vote for "the lesser of two evils"? No. Pavone replies, "One is choosing a good – [that is] the reduction ... of an existing evil." What some would call a vote for "the lesser of two evils" is really a vote to lessen evil.

One of the most clear-cut examples is abortion. In numerous races, one candidate wants to maintain unrestricted access to abortion while the other is pro-abortion, but wants some restrictions. I prefer, of course, a pro-lifer with no reservations. But a vote for the candidate advocating restrictions is a vote for less evil.

Yet if there is no candidate who promises to eliminate all abortions immediately – a position not likely to pass in Congress anyhow – some voters stay home on Election Day. The result? A candidate who could have moved the issue in the right direction loses by default, and the out-and-out pro-choicer wins – not good.

Father Pavone calls the vote "a practical exercise in leadership, by which we do our part to put people into office who can make some improvement in our country's policies ... [n]obody is morally bound to what is impossible, and it is perfectly legitimate to recognize the limits of what is possible."

No candidate is perfect. Even if the vote in some states seems to be for the lesser of two evils, cast your vote to bring about less evil. Our concern should be to make our community and our nation more moral than it is. And we do that by electing candidates who, as God's magistrates, reduce evil.

A vote that helps reduce evil may not be perfect, but it is a good vote.


Ultimately, how you vote will hinge on your reading of the character of two men.

Christians, conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, constitutionalists, patriotic independents and other traditionalists: When you look at George W. Bush today and are dissatisfied – dissatisfied that he raised the federal budget sky-high, that he granted de facto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, that he doesn't always follow the Constitution, that he invaded Iraq, that he hasn't done enough to fight abortion and gay rights, that whatever ...

What conclusion do you draw?

One conclusion is that Bush is a globalist, money-grubbing elitist Bonesman conspirator, or at best a clueless, sold-out puppet.

Another interpretation at the opposite end is that Bush is a general at war – a general who knows more than you do, who sees the lay of the land, who comprehends the odds, who knows what troops he's got, and determines which battles he can and must win and which ones he has to concede, at least temporarily – even if it looks bad to his supporters.

And where does the truth lie? What is the belief that will guide your vote on Election Day?

For me, despite whatever real or perceived flaws he has, I will vote for George W. Bush, a man who believes in freedom, stands for decent principles, has guts, trusts in God – the real one – and prays to that God. I'll vote for Bush over another Bill Clinton, another unprincipled opportunist for whom nothing is sacred other than himself and his personal glory, who would betray America as easily as breathing.

Yes, Kerry would betray the unborn, betray our youth, betray both the haves and the have-nots, betray us all. With inspiring rhetoric and fanfare, he would unravel what remains of our national sovereignty, leading us down the road to servitude, poverty and insecurity in a thousand smothering ways – all the while piously thinking he was ushering in a new era of peace.







David Kupelian is vice president and managing editor of WorldNetDaily.com and Whistleblower magazine.




9 posted on 11/01/2004 9:28:12 AM PST by SeasideSparrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969

Unfortunately many conservative Christians will vote for Peroutka

See
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/18/2386.html?


10 posted on 11/01/2004 9:28:21 AM PST by soccer_linux_mozilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: soccer_linux_mozilla

Well, some of them apparently have changed their minds now. I got this email from someone who was going to vote for Peroutka, but changed their mind and now is going to vote Bush. Here it is:

My brothers and sisters in Christ,



I'm a Christian living in North Carolina and I’ve received emails from the Constitution Party for quite some time now. Initially, I was impressed by the organization, but I must say that over time my feelings have changed. I no longer feel that a vote for Peroutka is a vote for principle. I now feel it is a vote supporting abortion and here’s why:



I see little difference between the attack ads from the Democrats and those of the Constitution Party. Both twist the truth and lack integrity. In fact, the tone of some of Peroutka's emails has become downright nasty. For instance, a Peroutka email dated 10/21/04 and entitled "President Bush Codifies Abortion into Law" stated a number of blatant distortions and outright lies regarding the President's attempts to eliminate abortion. In it, Peroutka's pastor (his pastor, now, not his lawyer) made the following weighty legal pronouncements:
o "Many Americans have successfully been deceived into believing Bush is pro-life. The evidence is against that fact. I have the distinct impression that he was without any real interest in the goals of the movement to end abortion." -- This is a heinous and untrue statement. Check out the list of Bush's pro-life accomplishments at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1140835/posts.

o "People say Roe v. Wade legalized abortion. It did not. It was the courts opinion in that one case, and it governed that one case alone. States, who chose to, could have continued to prosecute abortionists for murder. The law had not changed. Abortion was still murder." -- Excuse me, but please point out to me one successful prosecution of an abortionist since Roe v. Wade. There have been none, since any such prosecution would end up in federal court and eventually the Supreme Court where it would be overturned, thanks to Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade didn't make any new law, it interpreted the existing law such that a great evil became suddenly acceptable in the courts of our land.

o "The Partial Birth Abortion Ban for the first time in U.S. history codified abortion as the law of the land. It makes abortion legal for the first time ever in America. So Bush signed the first law to legalize abortion in America. Do you call that a pro-life Presidential candidate? Don't take my word for it. Check out the facts for yourself." -- What??!!! The NRLC (National Right to Life Committee) stated that "The bill represents the first direct national restriction on any method of abortion since the Supreme Court legalized abortion on demand in 1973." http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBAall110403.html I did an in-depth Google/Lexus/Nexus search and could find no indication that the passage of this bill "legalized abortion." The writer is obviously very desperate to disparage Bush in a vain attempt to boost Peroutka's chances.

The Constitution Party insists that a vote for Bush is at best only a vote for the lesser of two evils. I contend that a vote for Peroutka is the same thing. Over time I’ve become concerned that Christians are holding up this human being as a savior of sorts and that is just wrong. Christ alone will being true peace and goodness to our world at His return. I fear many Christians are making an idol of a human being in this instance. I am not impressed with the bravado and claims Peroutka makes in solving America’s ills. Because our government is representative of its people and because we are a sinful nation in so many ways, there is absolutely no way one man as President can bring about all the promises he espouses. Yet, Peroutka continues to claim he will abolish heinous practices such as abortion with the stroke of a pen. I wish he could, but he would be impeached if he tried. I believe he lacks wisdom and understanding in these matters. The only time Americans have ever had a choice to not elect the lesser of two evils was when Washington was made President. We are all flawed as humans. No one is good but God and that includes Peroutka.

And now towards the end of the election I must say I am disappointed that Peroutka lacks the integrity to step down. The fact that he is not tells me that he is more concerned about votes than he is about the plight of the unborn because if Kerry wins this election, the cause of the unborn will be severely set back through pro-death judicial appointments in the future. Through his staying in the race he is clearly not concerned about abortion as a primary issue. In my state of NC a man named Vinroot stepped down from running in the Republican primaries so that another Christian named Ballantine would have more time to run the race. He was applauded for his spirit of humility in doing so. I’m sad to say this, but I have seen very little humility in Peroutka’s statements.

Since no one man is perfect in God’s sight since Christ is the one who sacrificed His life for us, we live in an imperfect world. The best we can do is to focus on the platforms and the character indicators and weigh the likelihood of who WILL win the election while considering the consequences. Obviously, the Constitution Party candidate is not going to win this election. He most likely will only garner 1/10th of a percent of the vote. Clearly, if he were truly a man of integrity concerned for the unborn he would throw his vote behind Bush, but evidently he feels he is the only righteous candidate and that all who fail to vote for him are deceived by the wicked one. If there was no one else running who is prolife then I would vote for Peroutka, but in spite of Peroutka’s claims to the contrary, President Bush is prolife. Having seen what Perot did for the Republican Party – and for the country – for the subsequent 8 years, I will cast my principled vote for Bush. I see in him a spirit of humility before our God. In spite of his flaws, I see in him a contrite spirit realizing that He needs God’s help. He does not see himself as a savior, but as a willing tool in God’s hands – and that’s the kind of person I will vote for. I want a man who is more than just right. I want a man who has compassion, humility of spirit and knows his place before God.
The photo at http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/faulkner.asp was taken by a bystander of our President spontaneously hugging a girl who lost her mother in the WTC holocaust. Our President was not posing for a news camera; this was taken by a citizen standing nearby. His eyes reveal compassion and tenderness and this young girl’s life is changed for the better. I hope those of you who read my words will carefully consider your vote this year. On principle I hope you’ll consider that if Kerry wins, the cause of the unborn will be seriously hindered. There could be several Supreme Court vacancies over the next four years and either Bush is going to appoint prolife justices or Kerry will appoint prodeath ones. This could have great effect on potentially overturning Roe v. Wade. I truly believe that if Peroutka cared about this, he would step down on principle and graciously allow another Christian God’s favor.



May God give each one of us His wisdom as we go to the polls on November 2nd. God bless you.





11 posted on 11/01/2004 9:40:23 AM PST by SeasideSparrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: All

I am also sick and tired of this argument. Has it occured to anyone that maybe people who won't vote for Bush because of his stance on various topics(immigration for one) are voting so they can sleep at night? If that gets Kerry elected than I guess we all get what we deserve. If you think a few people who are sick of voting for the lesser of evils will get Kerry elected you are all backwards. None of us want Kerry elected but some of us aren't falling for the lesser of evils argument.

How long can we turn a blind eye? This election, the next, the next after that?? Will we ever get a party that actually represents us or will they continue to ignore us, the real conservatives??

I don't think voting for a third party of writing in a candidate will "send a message" as they could care less but it will allow you to look yourself in the mirror and say "I did not help put someone in office that screwed me over". If Bush had come out strongly against illegal immigration and sealed our borders after 9/11 this race would NOT be close by any means. That much is a fact.


12 posted on 11/01/2004 9:42:26 AM PST by Liberalism=MentalDisorder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeasideSparrow
A vote for Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party, or for the Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik – regardless of whatever personal virtues they possess, or those of their party's platform – amounts to a vote for Kerry. After all the high-sounding words have been spoken in justification of voting for either one, this is the undeniable fact that remains.

I'll deny that "undeniable" fact, and anyone who asserts it has a poor grasp of reality.

The reason not to vote for Peroutka & Badnarik is that their platforms are wrong on the most important current issue.

13 posted on 11/01/2004 9:44:17 AM PST by Sloth ("Rather is TV's real-life Ted Baxter, without Baxter's quiet dignity." -- Ann Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969
Oh please, do you actually believe that a vote whose consequence is to increase Kerry's chance of election is a step in the RIGHT direction?

Please explain, mathematically, how voting for a 3rd-party candidate increases Kerry's chance of victory.

14 posted on 11/01/2004 9:48:27 AM PST by Sloth ("Rather is TV's real-life Ted Baxter, without Baxter's quiet dignity." -- Ann Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ReadTheFinePrint

The out of control spending that I was convinced in 2000 wouldn't happen if I voted Republican is what made me look at third parties. I agree with what you say.


15 posted on 11/01/2004 9:52:52 AM PST by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe


hallelujah! someone else sees it this way. then who's it going to bein '08? can't have Hillary, we vote for the moderate Republican (RINO).


16 posted on 11/01/2004 9:53:07 AM PST by glockem (Consensus is the lack of leadership)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
Look here pal. You can vote whoever you want but since you are engaging in masturbatory behavior, I would appreciate it if you did it in the privacy of your own room and washed your hands after you finish. The rest of us will run the country for you.
17 posted on 11/01/2004 9:58:29 AM PST by GmbyMan ("Government is not the solution to the problems we face! Government is the PROBLEM!!!"-Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GmbyMan
But by picking one of this idiotic losing parties, you have ceded your right to make a real decision about this election! Pick a side!

Okay.

Name which party is responsible for the state our government is in.

If you said Republican, you'd be right.

And, if you said Democrat, you'd be right, too.

Now, why should I vote for either of the two parties which is currently running this country into the ground through excessive taxation, which is strangling us through increasingly oppresive laws, which is leading us to a one-world government through their foreign policies?

The only idiots are those who continue to believe the fairy tale that either a republican or a democrat is going to reduce the size and scope of the government, decrease taxation and protect our soverignty.

I have picked a side and it's opposing the policies of the two-faced government party.

18 posted on 11/01/2004 9:59:20 AM PST by Ol' Dan Tucker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
I am sorry, but that is an asinine, perspective. Yes in a perfect world every voter would be able to vote their beliefs. Even if you have to hold your nose to do it, you have to vote for the viable candidate. I could not vote for a third party in this election. This is a hearts and minds election. If you waste, and yes I mean waste your vote on a party's candidate that is in your comfort zone, then you are as much a part of the problem that Kerry's supporters are. 4 possible SCOTUS seats are up for grabs. 4 unabashed right to lifers pronounce a death sentence on millions of unborn children are 4 too many. Once elected to the presidency,the party formerly known as Democrats will do their damnedest to turn outsource our governance to the socialist UN. I don't know maybe deep in your conscience you desire this, but I don't. Vote Bush tomorrow. The consequences of voting third party are to high for the US.
19 posted on 11/01/2004 9:59:32 AM PST by MKM1960
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Liberalism=MentalDisorder
I am also sick and tired of this argument.

A common response when faced with a difficult truth.

Has it occured to anyone that maybe people who won't vote for Bush because of his stance on various topics(immigration for one) are voting so they can sleep at night?

How can they sleep at night if their vote actually helps ACCELERATE the movement of the country AWAY from their position? That's exactly what a vote for Peroutka would do.

If that gets Kerry elected than I guess we all get what we deserve.

Oh please, that's just sick self-flagellation that is neither politically astute or particularly Christian.

If you think a few people who are sick of voting for the lesser of evils will get Kerry elected you are all backwards.

You are ignorant of history, sir. In fact, you are ignorant of RECENT history. Third party candidates have served as spoilers in at least two of the last three elections.

None of us want Kerry elected but some of us aren't falling for the lesser of evils argument.

It's not a matter of falling for it, it's a matter of being convinced by it. It is about voting strategically, and there is nothing strategic whatsoever about voting for a spoiler when that spoiler would move the country further from your goals.

How long can we turn a blind eye?

You NEVER turn a blind eye. THAT'S THE POINT. You work at the local level, you work at the primary level, to move the Republican party in the conservative direction. You consistently vote for the most conservative candidate, on every ballot, that has a chance of winning. And then, once the primaries are decided, you vote for the Republican to make sure you don't LOSE GROUND.

The conservative movement must be just that, a MOVEMENT. Not a revolution.

Will we ever get a party that actually represents us or will they continue to ignore us, the real conservatives??

Yes, we will, if people don't sabotage the effort.

20 posted on 11/01/2004 10:01:28 AM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
Please explain, mathematically, how voting for a 3rd-party candidate increases Kerry's chance of victory.

It is a social science question, not a mathematical one. People who see the "lesser of two evils" argument as just that, "evil", fail to see the strategic benefit in voting for the most conservative two-party candidate. As such they take votes away from that candidate. It's really rather simple.

21 posted on 11/01/2004 10:03:22 AM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
"The reason not to vote for Peroutka & Badnarik is that their platforms are wrong on the most important current issue."

There is only ONE issue and that issue is The United States of America. The reason not to vote for Peroutka, Badnarik, Kerry, Nader or Bush is that their platforms are wrong on the most important current issue.
22 posted on 11/01/2004 10:03:38 AM PST by politicalwit (They want your vote... but not your voice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sloth


Even Pat Buchanan says we should not be in Iraq. Libertarians and Constitutionalists both want to bring our troops home, sooner than later.

Buchanan is holding his nose and voting for Bush, I presume, becasue he has endorsed him. And I probably will as well.

Republican support for Specter over Toomey still burns me. (Specter says he'll fight Bush over conservative justices -well look at what voting for the lesser of two evils got the nation in that race. But B/C wanted PA electoral votes so they sold out and took Specter. Hell if Santorum can be elected in PA then Toomey certainly could) And I no longer send dues to the RNC or contribute for funds to them, instead I support candidates or Club for Growth A list candidates.

I'll support Swift Boats, Fresham PAC (Gingrich's group), Citizens United and specific candidates. NRA-ILA has about received the last dime from me as well since they also favored Specter over Toomey. Gun Owners of America (GOA) I find to be more principled.

I agree had Bush taken a stance on immigration and pursued an Israeli styled airport security program we'd be in better shape and this election would not be a contest one way or the other.


23 posted on 11/01/2004 10:05:18 AM PST by glockem (Consensus is the lack of leadership)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SeasideSparrow
I can understand that people might have strong convictions that would cause them to vote third party. I do hope they are not later regretting that Kerry is in office because of their third party vote.

By the way, I imagine that Kerry supporters are saying the same kind of thing about Nader right about now. The difference is, the liberals whined and fought their hardest to keep Nader off the ballot. And they succeeded in several states. I'm not aware of any such action by Bush/Cheney against the conservative third party candidates.

24 posted on 11/01/2004 10:07:37 AM PST by MEGoody (Flush the Johns - vote Bush/Cheney 04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
You have picked no side. We are at war her (metaphorically speaking) and you are dressed up in a clown suit, frolicking in the woods next door! I am sympathetic to your cries for smaller government and the like but the only way to really change a party is from within. Voting for a third party might make you feel good but it does NOTHING to change anything. Hope you feel good about yourself. Let me know when you actually want to start engaging in the political process once more.
25 posted on 11/01/2004 10:08:20 AM PST by GmbyMan ("Government is not the solution to the problems we face! Government is the PROBLEM!!!"-Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
"I won't vote. I will not take an active part in getting Kerry or Bush made president."

Then as far as I am concerned, any whining you do about what the President does over the next 4 years won't be worth paying any attention to.

Have a nice 4 years.

26 posted on 11/01/2004 10:09:10 AM PST by MEGoody (Flush the Johns - vote Bush/Cheney 04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeasideSparrow

Tremendous - and compelling - statement from Kupelian. I could understand the protest vote if one was in hopelessly RAT-infested territory like Massachsetts. Fine. Send the RINOs a message. But in any state where Bush is behind by less than 20 points, we need to put the country first - like SwiftVet John O'Neill has (he's not very fond of Bush, from what I've read). I seriously question the continued existance of the USA should John Kerry mount the inaugural podium next January. He is absolutely abominable.


27 posted on 11/01/2004 10:12:05 AM PST by Bogolyubski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969

If Bush loses Texas by my one vote, I'll feel bad and apologize.


28 posted on 11/01/2004 10:12:37 AM PST by weaponeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Liberalism=MentalDisorder
"If that gets Kerry elected than I guess we all get what we deserve."

No, I won't be getting what I deserve if Kerry wins. I've already voted for Bush.

I'm going to try really hard not to blame the third party folks if Kerry gets in. I do realize they are voting based on strongly held beliefs, just as I am. But I can't say it will be easy.

29 posted on 11/01/2004 10:13:23 AM PST by MEGoody (Flush the Johns - vote Bush/Cheney 04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GmbyMan
Nice ad hominem attack.

If you want to debate where the country went wrong let's go back to the institution of the 'career' poitician.
A vote for President Bush is a good vote. A vote for Kerry is a bad vote. A vote for a third party is not a bad vote, as long as you are voting your conscience.

The two party system has screwed this country since the early 1900s.
If you want to keep getting screwed keep spouting BS about a third party vote being for the bad guys.

30 posted on 11/01/2004 10:13:40 AM PST by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SeasideSparrow
If Bush is truly "the lesser of two evils" – which, put another way, means he is the greater good – then it's indefensible to vote for anyone else than Bush, since that would unquestionably help Kerry – the greater evil. Huh? Finally, the "lesser of two evil" arguement is starting to make sense. If the is best arguement that can be presented, I guess I'll stick with the LP.
31 posted on 11/01/2004 10:14:03 AM PST by jazzo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

So, you're pro-military and pro-Second Amendment but by your inaction you are willing to help Kerry, who is both anti-military and anti-Second Amendment, get elected. Even if this election was not the most important election of my lifetime, either of those issues would be enough to make me vote Bush. If Kerry is elected, when (not if) they come for your guns, don't say you weren't warned.


32 posted on 11/01/2004 10:14:37 AM PST by Jaxter ("Guys like John Kerry spit on guys like me. I've been waiting 33 years to spit back.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GmbyMan


I agree with working from within the party to correct it. But if the leadership on top prefers convenience over principle, then down ticket candidates (like Toomey, Herman Cain, etc.) are rejected by the party leadership (these candidates it was said are too conservative and will cost us Senate seats. Maybe, but I doubt it with Cain in Georgia. A black conservative male running against a liberal black female in a conservative state - HELLO!.)

Then, I ask what good is it working inside the party if those making the decisions are interested in winning elections with little regard for our Constitutional safeguards?

I feel it to be a Hobson's choice. Don't fret - I'll vote for Bush, but not with a lot of enthusiasm.


33 posted on 11/01/2004 10:17:11 AM PST by glockem (Consensus is the lack of leadership)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: weaponeer
Just because you tease a rattlesnake and it doesn't bit you in the ass doesn't mean it wasn't a silly risk to take.

Having said that, I agree that there are a handful of states where a vote for Peroutka is "safe". If Peroutka were truly interested in advance the conservative agenda he would place himself on the ballot only in those states.

34 posted on 11/01/2004 10:18:56 AM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SeasideSparrow
Vote for Peroutka or Badnarik?

Uh, no.


35 posted on 11/01/2004 10:19:54 AM PST by Petronski (A Monday morning quarterback has never led any team to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
I voted for Bush when he ran for Tx. governor the 1st time (against Ann Richards). Bush bloated the state government spending so bad, I didn't vote for him the 2nd governor race (see www.neteffex.com/tx.jpg).

Four years ago, I voted for the U.S. Constitution party and did so again this year. Living in Texas, I have the luxury of voting my conscience. If I lived in a battle-ground state, I likely would vote for Bush (holding my nose...).
36 posted on 11/01/2004 10:21:15 AM PST by ricer1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ReadTheFinePrint
(added 2 trillion to national debt to chinese and japanese)

And this is relevant how?


37 posted on 11/01/2004 10:21:28 AM PST by Petronski (A Monday morning quarterback has never led any team to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969

Quote: "If Peroutka were truly interested in advance the conservative agenda he would place himself on the ballot only in those states."

Amen!


38 posted on 11/01/2004 10:21:49 AM PST by SeasideSparrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
I am SOOOOOOOOO tired of hearing that a vote for a third party is a vote for the Democrats.

I can understand why that would be tiresome. Of course, it's true. But yeah, tiresome too.


39 posted on 11/01/2004 10:23:11 AM PST by Petronski (A Monday morning quarterback has never led any team to victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GmbyMan


I agree with working from within the party to correct it. But if the leadership on top prefers convenience over principle, then down ticket candidates (like Toomey, Herman Cain, etc.) are rejected by the party leadership (these candidates it was said are too conservative and will cost us Senate seats. Maybe, but I doubt it with Cain in Georgia. A black conservative male running against a liberal black female in a conservative state - HELLO!.)

Then, I ask what good is it working inside the party if those making the decisions are interested in winning elections with little regard for our Constitutional safeguards?

I feel it to be a Hobson's choice. Don't fret - I'll vote for Bush, but not with a lot of enthusiasm.


40 posted on 11/01/2004 10:24:48 AM PST by glockem (Consensus is the lack of leadership)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SeasideSparrow

Who were you before you got kicked off the last time?


41 posted on 11/01/2004 10:25:00 AM PST by Protagoras (Hating Kerry doesn't make you a conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReadTheFinePrint

That's why we should work from the bottom up on the third parties. Get more of them into congress and the senate. I am voting Libertarian against John McCain.


42 posted on 11/01/2004 10:25:07 AM PST by HungarianGypsy (Icy Dead People.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Dan Tucker
Now, why should I vote for either of the two parties which is currently running this country into the ground through excessive taxation, which is strangling us through increasingly oppresive laws, which is leading us to a one-world government through their foreign policies?

Because it is an absolute certainty that your party will lose, and that one of the two parties is going to win. The fact that you do not consent is frankly irrelevant.

This is not an "approval poll", this is an ELECTION. Which means that the results of this election have genuine consequences. Therefore, every vote has an impact on the winner of that election.

I have picked a side and it's opposing the policies of the two-faced government party.

No. You have picked the side of supporting the winner of the election, no matter who it is.

I will say this. I would wholeheartedly support a change to our Constitution (if necessary) to adopt approval voting, so that people are free to vote both for their truly favorite candidate AND their "lesser of two evils" candidate.

43 posted on 11/01/2004 10:25:09 AM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr

If you keep waiting, maybe some day your ideal candidate will come along. In the mean time you have your crumby excuse to sit on your ass and do nothing except maybe complain


44 posted on 11/01/2004 10:27:19 AM PST by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeasideSparrow

Nothing will happen without God wanting it to happen, for his own purposes.


45 posted on 11/01/2004 10:27:30 AM PST by Protagoras (Hating Kerry doesn't make you a conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969
Supporting a right-leaning third party candidate in this election is INSANE. Period.

So when does third-party support make sense, in your mind? When is more choice and competition ok with you?

Candidates have appealing principles and platforms, or they don't.

46 posted on 11/01/2004 10:27:33 AM PST by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeasideSparrow

So why shouldn't conservatives vote for Nader as a protest vote, as a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush!

Seriously. I am sick of this "A vote for X is a vote for Y." NO, it's not. If you seriously believe that the two candidates are nearly as bad, you should vote for a better one. I think Bush is sufficiently better than Kerry that you shouldn't vote for him, but if your big issue is a balanced budget, or illegal immigration, or eliminating the IRS you probably should vote for Badnarik or Peroutka.


47 posted on 11/01/2004 10:30:59 AM PST by KillBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liberalism=MentalDisorder
If that gets Kerry elected than I guess we all get what we deserve.

Sadly, I think it means that I get what you deserve. I voted for Browne and helped Clinton get elected the second time. Don't do as I did. It was a horrible mistake.

48 posted on 11/01/2004 10:38:36 AM PST by badbass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Hank Rearden
So when does third-party support make sense, in your mind?

Earlier I conceded that in certain states (Texas, Utah, California) a few votes for a third-party candidate won't serve as spoilers. In any states where it is even remotely close, it is strategically flawed to do so.

The higher the office, the less appropriate it ever is to vote for a third party candidate.

The bottom line is that our political system naturally supports a two-party system. That's just the way it is, and without some structural change, third parties will always serve as spoilers. I suggested one such structural change earlier in this thread: a shift to approval voting. This would allow third parties to grow without endangering the outcome of the two two tier candidates---until, of course, that third party gains a critical level of support so that it joins the "top tier" clib itself.

In the meanwhile, the only feasible way to effect significant change is to work within the two parties, or to push third-party candidates at the local level and work your way up. (We have quite a few Greens in office here in California.)

49 posted on 11/01/2004 10:38:51 AM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Of course, it's true. But yeah, tiresome too.

The only reason it's tiresome is because it's NOT true.

Again, if more people voted their comscience instead of being scared by scaremongers saying, (paraphrasing) "If you don't vote for who I want you to vote for it will be your fault if the person who I don't want to win does win and screws our country royally.", maybe we wouldn't have to cast a vote for the, "lesser of two evils".

50 posted on 11/01/2004 10:41:30 AM PST by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-234 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson