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