Democrat Senator Zell Miller to Endorse President Bush

KenH,

The same thing would happen if, say, the Constitution Party presidential candidate received about 3% of the vote and cost someone like George W. Bush victory in a close election. The next election cycle the Republican side of the Demopublican Party would move toward the issues and concerns of those of us who want to re-establish limited, constitutional government. And the Republicans would be moving toward more freedom for all Americans instead of moving toward the socialism that the Democrats are moving even further toward now.

This is the best response I've seen to the "lesser of two evils" choice of conservatives such as myself in deciding to vote for Bush. But it fails as instruction or analogy:

--It was not the Green Party's performance nationwide that kept Gore out of office. It was specifically their showing in Florida that did so. For the analogy to hold, the Constitution Party would have to draw enough or threaten to draw enough elctoral votes to make a difference. Very unlikely.

--I don't believe that the Democrats are applying a lesson from 2000 in campaigning to the Left as a way of co-opting a potential competitor as the Green Party. I think it is: (1) a national Democratic impulse to campaign to the Left, (2) it is an attempt to "out-Left" Dean, their leading contender, and (3) it is largely dictated by their Leftist opposition opposition to the war in Iraq, inspired by 1960's "pacifism" (in quotes because it is largely driven by Leftist anti-Americanism).

--With such isolationist impulses as exemplified by PA Jim and Ken H, they are not likely to strike a chord among the broad conservative base of the Republican Party.

Though I wish it were true, I think that even if the Constitution Party could threaten Bush politically, such a showing would simply result in their being castigated at Perotist spoilers and therefore to be shunned.

 

I think that PA Jim made an excellent point on another thread - www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001462 - it is the 8th post.

May we all avoid being tone-deaf toward God when casting our votes.

 

How do I exemplify isolationist impulses? Just asking, seriously.

I had to laugh at this, no offense. It would be as if you thought that a lifelong leper's greatest worry would be that folks might shun him.

 

PA Jim,

How do I exemplify isolationist impulses? Just asking, seriously.

I have understood from your posts that you wish for America to back out of "entangling alliances" and that you believe that America is too involved throughout the world. If I have misstated you, I apologize, but please correct me if I have.


I had to laugh at this, no offense. It would be as if you thought that a lifelong leper's greatest worry would be that folks might shun him.

No offense taken. What I meant was that conservatives in the electorate will simply be quite unhappy to see a Democrat get elected because a third party pulled votes away from the "lesser of the two evils" and we wound up with someone who goes full bore to enact the liberal agenda with no constituency to please except his liberal voters. In that case, I think that in the future such voters would be loathe to even look in the direction of the Constitution or Libertarian Parties (I'm afraid the Libertarian Party would have the greater chance of the two) in future elections. KenH has still made an excellent point that this might wake up a lukewarm Republican to conservative votes. It could just as easily, though, drive such candidates even further to the Left/middle to try to swing more of those voters to the GOP.

 

1)Hmmm...President Bush is already pretty much implementing the liberal agenda - as a Republican.

2)It would simplify things since they are already in practice one big government party - the Demopublicans - for the Republican Party to officially merge with the Democrat Party. That would then make it easier for conservatives to understand that the Demopublicans are in favor of bigger government. The conservatives could then actually vote for a party that intends to implement a conservative agenda.

 

No, George Washington and I both think that. Actually I got it from him.

That's what we have now, produced by the tactics that you support. Several times I have challenged folks here to name 5 significant, major shifts in policy from Clinton to Bush. The best that they can do is to ridicule me for asking. Because THEY CAN'T NAME 3 OR 4, LET ALONE 5. A constitutionalist conservative President would have a list of 10.

Bush has, best as I can figure, 1: tax cuts. And that is dubious, because he is spending money so fast that the cuts simply add to the debt that we will have to pay off in the future. But, hey, we don't want a Democrat to bury us in debt, after all.

 

PA Jim,

No, George Washington and I both think that. Actually I got it from him.

In another thread ( Santa Claus visits the Philippines) I answered pretty much the same question:

At that time, you said you would chew on that argument. I hope you haven't spit it out already.


Several times I have challenged folks here to name 5 significant, major shifts in policy from Clinton to Bush. The best that they can do is to ridicule me for asking. Because THEY CAN'T NAME 3 OR 4, LET ALONE 5.

That is simply not true. I made just such a response recently on another thread. I don't recall how major they were but I think I did respond with five policy changes. I'll let you look that one up.


A constitutionalist conservative President would have a list of 10.

I've certainly never claimed he was a constitutionalist conservative President. You know that I have decried his positions several times. His backpedaling on PBA is the latest that has ticked me off. My point is simply that given the candidates with a real chance at being elected, in what is likely to be a close race, I will vote for the one who will be less dangerous in order to keep the more dangerous one out.

I am also reasonably happy with his judicial appointments, though quite unhappy with the lack of guts of the Republicans in the Senate. Their "reverse filibuster" was ridiculous. Rather than even having to put themselves through a 30 hour marathon, I just want them to have the courage of their convictions to actually force the Democrats to filibuster. And, BTW, I'm not so sure about a rules change to do away with the filibuster. If we had Senate Republicans with any guts we might not have a Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Court, but they might have been able to do so without a filibuster.

 

PA Jim,

So, now you've just compounded the mis-statement. I gave you more credit than that.

So, I went back and looked it up.

I erroneously said S.C. but the point remains about his federal court appointments.

 

Sorry, there was a different post that I was thinking about. I'm pretty sure it was you.

But, as you point out, most of them are certainly not major. I still think Bush qualifies as a continuation of Clinton. Of course, Clinton was also largely a continuation of Bush 1.

Just more of the same statist, elitist c%@p.

 

PA Jim,

You're on the ship of state and it's headed to the edge of the world. There are two Captains aboard who both want to go the same direction but one wants to throw up another sail to get there faster. You get to pick which one.

 

The problem is that by picking either one you are being an accomplice to continuing in that direction regardless of the speed.

In golf if you don't hit your putt hard enough to reach the hole, it won't go it. In politics if you don't vote for what you want, then you won't get it.

 

That would be a bad situation, indeed.

Fortunately in politics that doesn't happen, at least in America. There are frequently candidates who want to take us in the right direction.

Trouble is, Christians seem quite happy with the ones who are destroying us.

 

Happy is not the issue. I'd love it if Alan Keyes, for example had a rat's chance to get elected to the white house. He doesn't. Every Christian who votes for a never-gonna-get-there-in-100-years third party is voting for the democratic candidate. The Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, etc., are going to eventually go the way of the "Know-Nothing" party, the "Anti-Masonic" party, The Prohibition Party, the Free Soil Party, and the Progressive Party.

 

PA Jim,

Trouble is, Christians seem quite happy with the ones who are destroying us.

Trouble is, some other Christians are quite content to throw their votes away on candidates who don't have a chance, apparently to serve only one purpose, to preserve their right to complain about both parties, quite content to let the ship of state race to destruction without doing anything that might actually slow it down. Third parties remain third parties for a reason. Even the Communists had enough tactical sense this year to know that they stand a better chance with the Democrats. My Republican vote is not for Republican liberals, it is against Democratic socialists. The difference is that my vote will have a chance of keeping the socialists out.

 

To quote a trite phrase, you guys are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I wouldn't have been able to see any good coming from 3 Hebrews being thrown inro a furnace...obviously they will die, won't they?

I wouldn't have been able to seee any good coming from marching around the walls and blowing trumpets...what a ridiculous waste of time!

Moses?? A man of slow speech, leading all of Israel? Forget it!

And what about the Son of God, "helplessly" nailed to a cross between two thieves?

I don't claim that I would have had the faith to assess these things correctly on the spot but thankfully He gave me the faith to believe on the Son of God!

Maybe for America, he's just waiting for His people to have the faith to very simply stand for what is right.

Or, are these just nice stories that we teach the kids in Sunday School, and then throw in the trash once we become enamored by the prestige of the political bigshots? Good for Sunday sermons, but in real life we know that "The Party's" "leaders" know more than God.

Do we pray for Godly candidates, and then vote them out "because they can't win"?

 

How can you keep socialists out by voting for them?

 

Different socialists.

 

Hey Jim, I am especially curious of yours and KenH's responses to the questions I posed in the "Judicial Review" thread in this forum.