Crawford Tx. Newspaper endorses KERRY!!!

Because I don't like Badnarik or the Libertarian platform.

 

I thought it would be interesting to look up the definition of an "Iconoclast"...

What a *revealing* word study as to what this paper is *all* about....

 

Just like I stated earlier...a left wing, liberal media outlet.

 

Do you like them less than the consistently liberal, big-government policies of Bush?

 

Look, Jim, I'm not voting third party either way until there is a VIABILITY FACTOR among them, and at this point there is not one. At this point, I don't see one. Why? Because Ross Perot and his cronies made a joke of third parties on the national level. On the state level, only a handful of people have been successful, and in local elections, more of the third party candidates have been successful, though I'm finding most only serve one term and then either stop or are defeated in the next election.

Bush at the present is still the better option.

 

Hmmm...kinda like deciding to stay in a plane crash, because you don't know who packed the parachute.

Not necessarily a dumb decision, but maybe it's worthy of a little more consideration.

There's still time.

 

No, not at all. It's like using your head until there is a VIABLE OPTION. I don't consider voting for someone who hasn't got a snowballs chance in Phoenix of winning a VIABLE OPTION, a "threat" or anything else that is going to scare the two major political parties at this point. If third party supporters can't drum up enough support, it's probably because of attitudes like yours and Pa Jims and many other people who support third parties who hold a minority view and try to push it on people. That's one of the biggest turnoffs around...OVERSELL...OVERKILL, etc. Until there is a VIABLE third party that makes sense, then the only two REAL choices are democrat or republican whether people like it or not. I would rather put my vote on one of the two parties that is actually going to be running the country choosing the lesser of two evils than to waste it on an NON VIABLE wannabe party.

 

I understand your point, AVL1984. In my case, President Bush will win Arkansas by a comfortable margin so I can vote strategically for Michael Peroutka instead of tactically for President Bush without affecting who becomes President on January 20, 2005.

 

Ken, then that for you might be a viable option. For me, it's not. Though they say that TN isn't a "battleground" state, the Democrats are certainly trying to make it one. For others in other states that are not battleground, it might be viable for them to vote third party if they wish. So far, I haven't found a third party candidate or platform I would vote for.

 

Good point there. Then, Buchanan made it worse, when he tried to hijack a party that didn't even believe in many of the things he stood for. The CP wanted him, and he turned them down. Everybody would rather be big than right. Somehow, we have to find a way to have both.

 

In my case, Pennsylvania is a pivotal state with a huge impact. I'm voting for Peroutka.

 

Barbarian observes that voting for Bush is like staying in a crashing plane, because you don't know who packed the parachutes:

I think it was Jim who pointed out that helping drive the bus over a cliff is not a viable option.

If Bush loses because people finally stop buying the idea that "yes, he's bad for Christians, but we have no choice to support him" argument, you bet they'll notice.

And I have the added benefit of being able to look in the mirror without flinching.

 

Galatian, I too can look into the mirror without flinching (I'm not THAT ugly...LOL) But, honestly, I can look into the mirror with a clear conscience. Many could not take the position I am and do so. As stated, when third parties become a viable option, I will vote that way, but until then, I'm responsible for voting fot the best of the people available who can actually make it into office.

 

AVL, do you realze that the way they will become a viable option os for people like you and me to support and vote for them? Be part of the solution, friend.

 

Jim, if they were drawing at least 10%, I would.

 

What's "liberal" about this endorcement? One of the things stressed here is fiscal responsibility, one of the things that used to be the hallmark of the Republican party.

 

The Republican party used to be conservative.

 

AVL, if they were drawing 10%, millions would. Why not lead instead of follow?

 

I've already stated the reasons, Jim. I'm not "following" anyone but God in my decision. Until they prove themselves as viable, they are not an option. They can't even come up with 10% of the vote with all third parties combines, much less 5%.

 

If they don't endorse Bush, they must be treasonous liberals, don't you know.