Uh, no.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If Bush loses Texas by my one vote, I'll feel bad and apologize.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Uh, no.
And this is relevant how?
Quote: "If Peroutka were truly interested in advance the conservative agenda he would place himself on the ballot only in those states."
Amen!
I can understand why that would be tiresome. Of course, it's true. But yeah, tiresome too.
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.
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.