Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by KenH, Oct 26, 2003.
A vote for a third party by a conservative is a vote for the democratic party. Conservatives twice elected Bill Clinton by voting for Perot or some other third party. The two-party system makes it nearly impossible for a third party to become a major force. The last time this happened was in 1860, and it took the most divisive issue in our history--slavery--to do that.
If we don't like big government, the thing to do is continually fight for control of the GOP.
Been there, done that, and those in favor of limited, constitutional government lost. The GOP is now run by big government liberals like George W. Bush.
Been there, done that, and those in favor of limited, constitutional government lost. The GOP is now run by big government liberals like George W. Bush. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, it's happened before, and it cycled back. If you work for a third party, you are working to elect Howard Dean (probably).
With 3 million lost jobs, a record federal budget deficit, the Iraq quagmire, and the (un)Patriot Act, I will be glad to see President Bush lose to even Howard Dean. Moving 5 miles per hour faster toward the cliff under a quite liberal Democrat is basically the same as under a liberal Republican.
How you conservatives think things are going to get better by continuing to vote for liberal Republicans like Mr. Bush is really amazing. You get what you vote for. If you vote for a liberal like Mr. Bush, then you get liberal policies. If you want limited, constiutional government then you have to vote for a candidate who truly believes in such. Ya'll should have learned your lesson like I did after voting for Mr. Bush in 2000.
One definition of insanity is to keep performing the same action and expecting a different result. Conservatives keep voting for liberal Republicans and most have not learned that the result will be liberalism. Yet they keep doing it over and over and over again, expecting a different result this time. You conservatives are like Charlie Brown; you think Lucy won't move the football this time when you try to kick it.
When Howard Dean appoints judges from the 9th circuit to the SCOTUS. Remember your words. I will.
The economy was headed South in July 2000, and 9/11 made it worse. It is on the mend now.
Quagmire? I know a quagmire when I see one--Vietnam, where we lost 100-150 men a week at its height, and where we were fighting main force NVA, not just VC. Of course, you could consider Korea (40,000 US troops) or Germany, or Japan, or the Balkans quagmires. Would you rather see a Hitler or a Tojo back in power?
Bush is not 65 to Dean's 70. He may be 25.
If you look at the folks on the Supreme Court who are most inclined to support government against individuals, you will find that a Bush nominated most of them.
The only one in that category is Souter, who was thrust upon Bush I by a senator who was less than honest.
Thomas, the other Bush appointee, is one of the most conservative on the court. Renquist was a Nixon appointee, Scalia, Kennedy and O'Connor were by Reagan
Breyer, Ginsberg were Clinton appointees.
Stevens was a Ford nominee.
Are you sure you want to go there? I remember all of you conservatives saying we had to vote for Republicans so we could get a majority on the Supreme Court of these United States of America to overturn Roe v. Wade. As you see, the vast majority of the judges were appointed by Republican presidents. And yet we are no nearer having Roe v. Wade overturned.
And I know what the reply is from conservatives, "Well, well, you see, we need more Republicans in the Senate. Yeah, that's it, more Republicans in the Senate so we can get Supreme Court justices who are really, really conservative."
The commentators are correct; you conservatives are played like a fiddle by liberal Republicans like George W. Bush, et al.
Stevens--Ford (never claimed to be conservative)
Souter--Warren Rudman lied to Bush I about Souter's views
With a GOP president, we have a shot at a conservative nominee--the ones Bush has been appointing to lower courts have been true conservatives. With Dean, we get people who would make the current liberal wing look conservative.
And Roe v. Wade still won't be overturned. You just don't get it, do you Charlie
First, I'm not Charley Brown unless Barbie is your wife...I'm doing facts, you are resorting to ad hominum--an admission of defeat.
Second, you don't know that.
Third, abortion is not the only issue in concern here. See: 9th circuit on just about every other issue.
Yeah, right. If anyone is in denial of the facts, it's you. So there.
But for now, night, night.
It seems that the last resort of the Bush supporters is to bring up the issue of court appointees. maybe because, as you can see above, it's difficult to nail down, just like Bush.
If Bush and the Republican congress were conservative, and worthy of conservative votes, couldn't we count on:
Reduction in the size of the Federal gov't, instead of massive increases.?
Less federal involvement in education, instead of more? (in fact, elimination of the dept. of education, as promised during the Reagan years?)
A meaningful fight to criminalize abortion?
Reduced spending and deficits, instead of WILD increases in both, WORSE THAN THE DEMOCRATS EVER DID?
Repudiation of the power grabs by the homosexual lobby, rather than handing them high level appointments in return for votes?
Control of our borders and a sane immigration party, instead of massive uncontrolled immigration?
Abolishment of the National Endowment for the Arts, which has a track record of producing anti-Christian, hateful "art" with tax money, as once promised?
THIS IS WHAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE NOW GIVING US...NO DIFFERENT FROM THE DEMOCRATS.
The list goes on, and Ken is right on track: the two parties have joined in a cartel to gut the American economy and society and divide the spoils between the politically connected few.
Bush has only increased the size of big government and the GOP has shown that it is not that differant from the Democrats in electing a liberal Republican for Governor of CA and by wasting more and more tax payer money and by returning to it's Lincolnian roots of violating civil rights with the Patriot Act. The GOP held tight control over the 2000 Convention making sure to muffle the social conservatives in the party. To my fellow Republicans who think the GOP is the still party of Roanald Reagan...WAKE UP! A Clintonian style of Conservatism has taken over the party that as long as you have a R behind your name you are acceptable. The Reagan revolution ended in 1989 with George Bush Sr. and G.W. Bush has led it farther into the abyss. The party of Reagan is now the party of Pataki, Specter, Schwarzenegger, on the left and neo cons like Rumsfeld, Ashcroft on the right. Hardly the poliitical company I want.
A vote for a third party candidate is not a wasted vote especially if you vote on your convictions. I believe a Third party will challenge the Big 2 in the future. It is also sending them a message they are bankrupt of ideas as far as you are concerned.
AMEN to that, Brother!!!!
Why do the third parties always have to aim at the presidential elections? That is a lost cause.
Why not start running for senate or congress first?
I would vote for a presidential candidate from a "third party" only if they first have at least 5 senate or congress seats.
Otherwise it is a waste of my vote.
I agree and that is what the Libertarian Party has been doing. Here is some info from the party's website:
The Libertarian Party ran more than 1430 candidates in the 2000 elections, more than twice as many as all other third parties combined. We fielded candidates for 255 of the 435 seats in the U.S House as well as 25 of the 33 Senate seats up for election -- the first time in eighty years that any third party has contested a majority of the seats in Congress. Our slate of U.S. House candidates received 1.7 million votes, the first time any third party has received over a million votes for U.S. House.
We are building a new political party from the grassroots up, and the vast majority of our candidates are running for local office. Currently, over 300 Libertarians hold elective office, more than twice as many as all other third parties combined.
Unless they have changed the Constitution Party's strategy has been to win the White House and then, by using the president's veto power and getting at least 1/3 of at least one house of Congress to go along, be able to reduce the size of government.
I will keep watching how they are doing. In the last elections here my vote was for McClintock.
BTW, what do you think about Libertarian position regarding drugs.