Third Party Myths; or, Why You'd Be Nuts to Leave the GOP

That’s one way of looking at it. But if you combine the votes of the two outright anti-slavery candidates (Lincoln and Bell) and assume Douglas was not going to support any new constitutional protections on slavery (which he said he wouldn’t), then actually the “anti-slave” vote was about 2/3s of the country, if not more.

I meant Vidkun Quisling. He is no less a traitor to Norway than someone like John McCain is to conservatives. Neville Chamberlain was merely spineless; Trent Lott is spineless. John McCain and his ilk — Lindsay Graham, Arlen Spector, Chuck Hagel, Olympia Snowe, and of course, Jim Jeffords — are much more than spineless. They are active Judases.

I’m not sure why you classify Bell as anti-slavery. He campaigned on a platform, if you can call it that, of continuing the compromises that had got the Union to where it was.

He opposed secession by his native TN, but accepted it when he couldn’t stop it, unlike Andrew Johnson, who fought on in exile.

The Crittenden Compromises were perhaps a good example of his political philosophy, and they were certainly not anti-slavery in any real sense.

I would rank Douglass as more anti-slavery than Bell.

Lincoln - 39.8%

Douglas - 29.5%

Breckinridge - 18.1%

Bell - 12.6%

Thus, if you class Bell as anti-slavery, which I don’t, the anti-slavery candidates totaled 81.9%.

More realistically classifying Bell as pro-slavery gives you 30.7% for slavery, and 69.3% against. Of course 1M+ black men were not allowed to vote.

If Rudy McRomney win the nomination I definitely will not be vote for the GOP for Presient in 2008. That is not ever going to change.

Convenient, but not an accurate reflection of what occurred.

How so? George H.W. Bush lost the election for the Republicans. Or, did he just blow it off to win it for the Democrats?

Regardless, that is how I see Giuliani... A Trojan Horse on the issues for the Democrats to nullify the conservative activist core of the Republican party.

Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary will lose the election. I am perfectly fine with letting you lose it, because it is the issues that matter, not the fancy Madison Avenue designer labels.

If Giuliani really wanted to take Mrs. Clinton off the table, he would have done something when she sought reelection to the Senate the second time around.

He didn't. He campaigned in lots of other places for other candidates who all lost. (He even endorsed flaming leftist Mario Cuomo previously over Republican George Pataki in a New York gubernatorial race.)

That is not someone I want leading the GOP if I am to remain in the party. It is a track record of failure.

“Amnesty was defeated. Point scored.”

Yet the illegals are still pouring across our borders by the thousands. Bush as well as Giuliani are open border politicians. We are almost past the crossroads of the illegal immigration problem. You won’t have to worry about who you elect.

Americans have built this country up to be the greatest nation on earth. Americans strive to get ahead by providing the best for their families, good neighborhoods, schools, less crime, better health care. However, our politicians are allowing all of the ills of this imported poverty to wreak havoc on the very things we strive for.

I will not vote for a candidate unless they promote for building a 2,000 mile fence, deporting illegals, fining employers who hire illegals, and remove the social programs that are given to illegals.

THE ONLY WAY THE IMMIGRATION ISSUE IS GOING TO GET RESOLVED IS TO VOTE THESE POLITICIANS OUT OF OFFICE. READ THE CONSTITUTION PARTY’S PLATFORM.

Bush has been a major disappointment. He claims to be doing the work of the people. It surely is not his core conservative base. Illegal immigration, big government expansion, an ill advised war have been total disasters.

but to refuse to exercise your "duty as a citizen" simply because you are stubbornly blind is not being a Conservative, it is reacting just like the Liberals. It is acting out of pure emotion rather than reason and to be Conservative one must have reasoning power.

Indeed. So I would ask you, why do you refuse to do that duty?

Why do you remain stubbornly blind, voting for a party that neither represents you, nor what you profess to believe in? Isn't that, in fact, more the emotional knee-jerk liberal-like reaction you had just accused me of? "Vote for the party, no matter what"- Isn't that a trait of Democrats?

It certainly isn't a function of conservative reason to vote for candidates that are not just nominally conservative on an issue or two, but are the antithesis of conservatism on almost every issue. Yet you would have me vote for them? It is you who is being unreasonable. You tempt me, not in the least.

The Republican party gets my vote most of the time for the simple fact that they are as utterly repellant as Dems.

Yet.

D) Blacks are to the Democrat Party

Without a friggin’ doubt.

Since 1992 have you voted for a Republican for President?

Bush, Dole, or Bush? Is your "I won't vote for xxx" a new phenomenon?

I am asking as a honest question, I am wondering if you would be a "new" lost GOP voter if Rudy is the nominee, or were you lost to the GOP years ago?

I am a Republican, don’t intend on leaving, but won’t vote for Giuliani... I’ll write in “Bullwinkle” first...

And no, I have always voted Republican, given money and actually worked as a party activist in many elections at the local, state and federal levels. I even publicly predicted George W. Bush would be the next president on a large regional radio station during an afternoon drive time when he was campaigning for governor of Texas (I supported his candidacy for president back then).

I am voting on the issues, not on a cult of personality. The fancy Madison Avenue designer labels don’t mean a thing anymore, epecially if you are talking about moving the party to the left. No thanks.

Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is absurd...

We are almost past the crossroads of the illegal immigration problem. You won’t have to worry about who you elect.

The rule of law is practically gone.

It is not just illegal immigration, it is an invasion...

These morons want me to vote for someone who will take guns away?

Guns were not invented to use on animals.

Believing in the Chimera of the perfect Conservative candidate is irrational. Believing that there is no substantive difference between Hillary and Rudy or Mitt is irrational.

Not choosing the lesser of two evils by sitting out an election and whining is irrational and irresponsible.

I vote for the Republican because the alternative is unthinkable. In the final analysis, I place my nation's welfare above my own narrow philosophical preferences; to do otherwise is selfish and irrational. It is the act of an immature and underdeveloped sense of duty.

One only has to look back into our nation's history to observe that however abhorrent one may find the Republican candidate to be through the lense of conservatism, the Democrat alternative has invariably been worse. I give youJohn Fitzgerald Kennedy, creator of the "White House of Prostitution," "the Bay of Pigs Fiasco," and "the Cuban Missle Crisis," Lyndon Baines Johnson, creator of the "Great Society," Jimmy Carter, creator of the "Economic Triple Double" (double digit inflation, double digit interest rates and double digit unemployment), and William Jefferson Clinton, creator of "the Oval Office B.J.," "the Most Corrupt Administration in American history," and the primary cause, by his inaction and inattention, of our problems with terrorism.

So you tell me, who is the rational one in this discussion, the one who will vote for a Republican candidate that meets a few but not all of his standards, or the one who is willing to sit out an election because he can't find a reason to vote for the lesser of two evils thus allowing another Democrat to win the White House?

On second thought, don't bother. It's a rhetorical question. completely out of your league.

Believing in the Chimera of the perfect Conservative candidate is irrational.

I never suggested a belief in a perfect conservative candidate. I only want a candidate who could be considered to be conservative. As I had said earlier, I will vote for any candidate who stands for traditional conservatism and has a record that backs him up. RudyMcRomney is not conservative.

Believing that there is no substantive difference between Hillary and Rudy or Mitt is irrational.

I said nothing of the kind to you- Since we're on the subject, Which of the three stands upon traditional planks of the Republican platform, and how many of those planks do they stand upon? Lets leave the WOT out of it, as none of the above are qualified to be Commander in Chief.

Not choosing the lesser of two evils by sitting out an election and whining is irrational and irresponsible.

I will not be staying home- But I already know that I will not vote for RudyMcRomney. They do not deserve the vote. I will vote for someone, however.

I vote for the Republican because the alternative is unthinkable. In the final analysis, I place my nation's welfare above my own narrow philosophical preferences [...]

LOL! "narrow philosophical preferences"... Is that what we are calling principles now? How absurd! How does voting for liberal RINOS aid in our nations welfare? I would think it quite the reverse.

One only has to look back into our nation's history to observe [...]

That argument is untenable- While I agree to a point, you are assuming their Republican counterparts would have been better. That is not valid, and cannot be proven.

the one who will vote for a Republican candidate that meets a few but not all of his standards

RudyMcRomney do not qualify as meeting "a few but not all". Again, judging by their records, which traditional conservative principles can you honestly be confident that they would uphold?

Thanks for your answer, I was just trying to gauge in some totally unscientific way, if the GOP was losing “real” votes if Rudy was nominated.

If you believe that Goldwater would not have been better than Johnson, that Nixon would not have been better than Kennedy, that Ford would not have been better than Carter, and that Bush senior would not have been better than Clinton then your entire argument is untenable, historically uninformed and naive as to the point of absurdity.

You are, to be blunt, clueless.

If you believe that Goldwater would not have been better than Johnson, that Nixon would not have been better than Kennedy, that Ford would not have been better than Carter, and that Bush senior would not have been better than Clinton then your entire argument is untenable, historically uninformed and naive as to the point of absurdity.

Having agreed with you (to a point), I merely suggest that we can't assume it is so- As an example: Bush's second term looks *nothing* like his first. To predict an alternative history is a useless and unprovable endeavor.

Perhaps you could provide an answer to the questions I posed in the previous post rather than ranting without substance.

You are, to be blunt, clueless.

Yeah, right. Whatever.

"Leave out the WOT as none of the above is qualified to be Commander in Chief."

According to what standard? Yours?

Yeah, let's leave out the single most important issue facing America today and the single most important duty of our government. We don't want to discuss that because we know that all three of the front runners are hardline opponents of our terrorist enemies.

Are you claiming that John McCain would be weak in defending our nation against the Terrorists? Do you truly believe that Rudy or Mitt would be weak against al Qaeda or the various terrorist groups against whom we are fighting? YOu think Hillary would be, in any way, more effective this time around in fighting the same people she and Bill spent eight years ignoring?

You ought to be a stand-up commedian.

You ask me to tell you why I would be willing to support a man with whom I disagree on a very basic and gut level on the three main social issues facing America today, abortion, guns, and gay marriage. I have answered that question. I am willing to do so because the first and primary obligation of the President and the rest of our government is defense of the nation.

I am also not so paranoid as you when it comes to our 2nd amendment rights. There are enough in congress who would stand against any abridgement (beyond those already in place) of our rights (hopefully). I also do not believe that the repeal of the second amendment is at or anywhere near the top of "RudyMcRomney's" agenda.

The real fantasy here is your belief that we can teach those ba$tards a lesson if we let Hillary get elected. That is a genuine fantasy based on the flimsey hope that another Ronald Reagan will suddenly appear as savior of our nation. Ronald Reagan did not suddenly appear, he was fighting the battle long and hard for decades, he was a great orator, and had a compelling presence on stage combined with a disarming wit. He had a strong single-minded agenda which was to restore America to the place of primacy in which it belonged.

I have looked far and wide an I see no Reagans waiting in the wings to propel Republicans into ascendency if we lose. I see no Newt Gingrich's in Congress with the depth and breadth of historical knowledge or the ability to schmooze his opponents the way he did, in the offing. There is no guarantee that America will "wake up" once we are under the socialist rule of Hillary and the Democrat party.

What I see is a voting populace that is more and more preoccupied with "reality TV," scandal ridden celebrities, and as Juvenal said (pay attention sonny):

"iam pridem, ex quo suffragia nulli vendimus, effudit curas; nam qui dabat olim imperium fasces legiones omnio, nunc se continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat panem et circenses.

(Long ago, the people cast off their concerns, when we stopped selling our votes. The people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions, and all else, now meddles no more and longs eagerly for just two things — bread and circuses.)"

With a Democrat House and Senate and with Hillary, Barrack, or John in the White House, we may never get the chance to once more "meddle." With implementation of the "fairness doctrine," they can effectively squelch all public opposition and alternative media. With more and more middle class welfare, they can buy the votes they need to continue their domination. They did it once before and held on to the House for forty uninterrupted years. What makes you so sure they can't or won't do it again? History says the odds are against you.

What you and those like you who are so adamantly opposed to any moderate RINO presidential candidate are doing is betting the fate of our nation on the intellect of a population whose reading comprehension, educational quality, and reasoning ability is in steady decline. If we are to surmount or reverse the damage which has already been done, we must swallow our pride and gag down the lesser of two evils in the hope that a better Republican might rise up to lead us. No matter how good a man Duncan Hunter is, he is one of the most uncharismatic and unelectable politicians out there and no amount of wishing it were otherwise will change that fact.

Voting for a 3rd party candidate will yeild the same result this time as it did the last time. A Democrat in the White House with a Democrat majority in both houses.

If you cannot see these thruths, then forget about it and go ahead and pout your way to the new Socialist regime.