Redstate

"sigh."

You can't have a public, zero-cost, free-sign-up, anonymous, participatory blog, especially one by and for Republicans and Conservatives, on the Internet without inviting the dirty tricks, the trolls, the scum and their dog. Always has been true, always will be true.

This one was so obvious though.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I think this is one of those cases where the obvious covers the syndrome pretty well. If you step on a rusty nail and you haven't had a tetanus shot, you're in trouble. If you get a tattoo with your lurvrr's name across your chest and subsequently break up with them after a nasty fight over who pays the rent, you're going to hate your life. If you hang out in a tuberculosis ward without being careful, you're going to get TB. If you vote for Democrats, your taxes are going to go up.

I try to keep things simple. In that connection, John Stuart Mill never realized how disruptive anonymous communication on the Internet would be. How could he have known?

I wouldn't be a bit surprised of somehow her campaign is a driving force behind this whole 3rd party idea. It worked for Bill (Perot) and Hillary is counting on it working for her.

www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.

I believe deeply that the free exchange of information, opinion, ideas, facts and logic combined with the Democratic process is both wise and self-correcting. I'm an American. Most importantly, I have quite a bit of faith in the fact that even people who say James Dobson sometimes speaks for them wouldn't listen if he told them all to jump off of the nearest bridge.

In other words, I have quite a bit of respect for people's intelligence. It's a free country: voting your conscience doesn't always mean listening to your most important influences right down the line.

So the Dobsons, et. als., can say and do whatever they will, but I sincerely hope that on election day people will go to the polls and vote using their own minds. I know that in most cases they're every bit as capable of making good decisions as I am. At least, I hope they are. At least, I hope I am.

in the diary I posted on this topic. As has been amply demonstrated, there are some who are perfectly willing to jump off a cliff. That is their right. I don't believe there are enough of them to swing the election. In the meantime, rather than get mad about it, I suggest ignoring them. They have said they can't be convinced, believe them and leave them alone. Bad mouthing them and calling them all sorts of names (not saying that you have) only risks alienating others who could be offended into jumping off the cliff as well.

I don't like Rudy. I will be working to see to it that he won't be nominated. But if he is, Hilary Clinton as President is something I cannot abide. I strongly believe that most social conservatives are with me, and in the end the "dead enders" will not tip this election. As you, I hope I am correct.

In fact, I did it this morning - he won last night's debate in IMO.

But a goodly # of people on RS go ballistic at the mere mention of McCain, so it's never a pleasant experience. A pity, because I think he might do better than Rudy against HRC. He is, in fact, my #2 choice. I KNOW McCain is ready to be president. With Fred, I merely believe it.

Not only do the Rudy people run to his defense, but they write blogs like this which seem to suggest that people who disagree with them ought to be kicked off the site.

Nobody's telling anyone that they ought to be kicked off the site (except for the Ronulans, but that's a special case).

However, coming out and saying in advance that you're not going to support one of the leading contenders as the party's nominee, whoever it is, looks to some of us like poor sportsmanship at best, and threatening to collapse the Big Tent by kicking out the support poles at worst.

Our opponents on the other side learned in 2000 what happens when they throw support to a 3rd-party candidate instead of supporting a flawed nominee. We won the White House because of it. I'd really not like to lose the White House next year because we didn't learn from their mistake.

---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

"Nobody's telling anyone that they ought to be kicked off the site "

That's how I interpreted the original posters quoting the Red State editors that people who violate the purpose of the site can be banned.

Rudy isn't the only one people have said they wouldn't vote for in the general. People were saying that about McCain long before the whole Rudy thing happened. And pof course we know how Ron Paul gets treated on this site.

I am not asking anyone to be kicked off the site.

I am asking why that blog entry was allowed to stand without even so much as a disclaimer or a rejoinder ? I am also asking if its now considered good form to turn our artillery on our selves.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I could support Romney or Thompson but I lean towards McCain right now. But whenever McCain is attacked on this site, as he often is, I don't see hordes of people rushing to his defense.

If you see a bunch of McCain critics saying they'd rather elect Clinton President if McCain is our nominee, then your comparison would have some validity. In fact there is no significant outbreak of "McCain Derangement Syndrome" advocating the election of Clinton, nothing like the Giuliani Derangement Syndrome afflicting some here.

Lots of Republicans here criticize McCain, including me. That, along with criticism of Giuliani and other candidates, is part of healthy vigorous debate over who should be our nominee. When a few of the Giuliani critics degenerate into full blown GDS by advocating the election of Clinton, with arguments that make it hard to tell them apart from the mobies who join them, that elicits a different response than responsible Giuliani critics who argue why they believe Giuliani has flaws worse than some other Republican candidate.

It's healthier to be hypercritical of your own side than to demonize yoru enemy, in the long run.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

Voting third party in the general isn't going to save a single baby. The only thing that it will do is make certain that those of us who care no longer have a voice.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Tell me, if we elect Giulaini in 2008, what's the chance of electing a pro-life candidate in 2012?

Opportunities to get that 5th anti-Roe vote won't last forever. If we have pro-abortion presidents long enough, all the elder justices supporting Roe will be recycled.

Do you really think that Guiliani is going to be able to find three pro-choice, strong on crime/GWOT nominees?

Even if he tried, I doubt he could do that.

Do I think he'll keep his promise to nominate "strict constructionists?"

Yep... because if he doesn't do that then he most certainly won't be back for a second term and he'll want that.

Oz

www.first-cut-politics.blospot.com

Do you think there's a better chance of getting a SCOTUS justice out of Hillary that will over turn Roe?

It ain't likely.

Oz

www.first-cut-politics.blospot.com

"Yep... because if he doesn't do that then he most certainly won't be back for a second term and he'll want that."

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If Giuliani can win the Republican primary and the 2008 general election all without the support of Social Conservatives and perhaps in the face of active opposition, why in the world would he feel any need to seek their support in 2012 when he will be in a much stronger position as the incumbent?

If Rudy can win the primary and the general with active opposition, wouldn't it be better for them to work with him ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

We're NOT talking about SoCons. We're talking about AllTheRestCons. If Rudy screws up judges the rest of the base will go after him - see HM.

From my perspective, I don't look for judicial nominations that will overturn Roe. I look for a conservative track record in a nominee. The probability is that s/he would vote to overturn Roe. There is, however, a lot more on the table than just Roe and that's why Rudy has to be concerned about his nominations.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Even if someone is worried about Rudy's nominations for scotus.
Even a Kennedy or O'Connor would be better than a Darth Bader Ginsburg.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Where is the incentive to elect a real conservative in 2012. Keeping the presidency is not as important as voting your values and your heart. Yes, Hillary will not save the unborn, nor will Rudy. But that will strengthen our conservative roots for a 2012 comeback.

???WhoamI????

Man I bet you could sell being hit on the head with a hammer

Just because it feels so good when you stop
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

For those last two paragraphs.

“I think we are the team to beat in the NL East -- finally.” - Jimmy "MVP" Rollins, 1/23/07

If he's the nominee, he's going to have to be mindful of that and work to avoid the situation

It's within Giuliani's power to defuse this situation to a significant degree, and it would be in his political interest to do so. In fact, I think he would be wise to start to try doing this now, since the present controversy already seems to have put a dent in the perception of his superior electability.

I appreciate the distinciton between opinions stated on the front page (representing Red State) and those in diaries (personal opinions of those who may happen to be Redstate editors).

That's why I was particularly concerned to see Alexham's post on the front page, in which he states: "Indeed, if Rudy wins the GOP nomination, I will not vote for him."

I, too, hope to see an alternative to Rudy Giuliani as the Republican nominee, but I firmly believe that the consequences of a serious third party candidate could be far worse.

Alex made that disclaimer so that everyone would know where he stood in his analysis of the debate. That was, you know, one line. I find it ... significant ... that everyone latched onto that, and ignored that he concluded that Giuliani won the debate -- which was, after all, the topic of the multiparagraph story.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Actually, I did appreciate that he concluded that Giuliani won the debate, and was impressed with his ability to say so. However, I didn't state that in my comment, and you had no way of reading my mind, so point taken.

I'm just very, very wary of this issue turning into yet another Harriet Miers (or for that matter, immigration) fiasco and once again splitting the Republican party. Hopefully, as many others have said, we can get this hashed out in the primaries in a way that will allow us to present a relatively united front come November.

Although it is a subtle distinction that someone in MSM writing about RedState would probably miss, there is also a difference between an editor's front page story and a blog that is promoted to the front page by an editor. IIRC, the only blog I have had promoted to the front page was a pro-Giuliani one, and the editor did so with the comment that it was well-written and a good contribution to the debate, not an endorsement of the views express.

(For clarification, the views expressed were strongly pro-Giuliani, but not a presidential endorsement).

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

It was nothing short of memetic warfare. From the title I thought it was going to be something about the war on terror. I didn't think it would be casting me in the role.

It pretty much said if you aren't working to support a candidate not on their endorsed list you have been wasting your time. Thats tough to take. Its especially hard to take when you have people chiming in and saying your not pro life.

Whatever the original posters intent may have been (An aside I have always wanted to open an asphalt company named Good Intentions Asphalt). That blog was the most divisive piece I have ever seen on redstate. If the OP wasn't on Hillary's payroll she should hire him fast. He had Pro Life people attacking their allies the slightly less Pro Life people. I had to defend myself from being accused of wanting to see babies dead. And, from people that want to throw the election to Hillary ? If that isn't bizzare I don't know what is.

I understand your position about it being a blog. The blogs and comments though are frequently pulled, edited, or the authors receive requests to turn down the rhetoric. How the author reacts to the feedback usually is a good indicator of what they were really about when writing it, and if they want to keep participating.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I can understand that it'd be a big surprise to someone coming back to RedState after a vacation. But we've been having lots of threads on Rudy since the original triggering article. This was a needed response to the then-commonly-argued "All these social conservatives will get over it. When it comes down to voting for Hillary or Giuliani, they'll vote for Giuliani."

That's not true, and it required a frank statement to deal with it. Heck, if you follow these threads, you'll see we STILL have a terrible time convincing people that we've counted the cost here.

The point of giving these warnings isn't so that we can enjoy the wide array of brickbats thrown at us. It's so the party can nominate an electable candidate. As deeply regrettable as these internal tensions are, I think they're worth it.

Please don't read these articles as attacking whether you're pro-life. I can certainly see pro-life people coming down on both sides - heck, the threads are full of such posts. This is an issue of tactics as much as values. But if you're still thinking of all opposers of Giuliani as trolls, you're not ready for an amicable discussion of this yet.

That kind of stops the amicable with me. (For reference its over on the other thread someplace)

As to electing the electable, that was the rational the democrats used to pick Kerry in 04. Lets learn the lesson they didn't ?

If you have a guy who you feel is our great hope get him to win in our own primaries. Don't go threatening me with apocalypse in the general elections. I don't buy it from the global warming people I am not going to buy it from people with their own candidates.

Make the case for your guy. According to Dobbson ( A man who has obviously been working to hard on a noble cause) Rudy, McCain, and Thompson are all enough to cause the third party split. Who is left ? Ron Paul ??

He also thinks his third party can win. Well he won't do it with Dem votes. The 75% of the republican party that won't vote for a third party isn't going to help either.

So whats the net effect of this ? Well Dobbson earns himself and everyone thats pro life a seat next to Nader.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

"According to Dobbson ( A man who has obviously been working to hard on a noble cause) Rudy, McCain, and Thompson are all enough to cause the third party split."

Find the proof, and I'll be happy to publicly state Dobson is a dingbat. (Note: Refusal to endorse someone is not a threat to start a third party against him.) Nor is that the position of the VAST majority of the anti-Rudy posters here. How has this escaped you?

I also don't see why you want us to name a specific candidate - except to make us look more demanding. That we'll pretty much vote for any Republican but Rudy isn't all that complicated.

If seeing a third party form against Rudy is the only acceptable form of proof to you, I'll just have to hope the rest of the party is more reasonable. The margin of error on the poll is probably less than 28%.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55736

Theres more on this on their site. So either we take Dobson at his word or not.

First as to naming specifics, they are real hypotheticals are not. Real candidates have real baggage.

Second I am not making a wish with bugs bunny. You can't expect the rest of us to keep guessing untill we pick one you like.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

that I don't any large faction of the party will oppose: Thompson. And I say this as someone who is less excited about than any candidate except for - Rudy, Tancredo, and Paul. I'm not excited about Thompson, but I think I could be in the general, and I don't think there is any widespread opposition. I also don't think the SoCons would be as upset with McCain, allthough my feeling is that McCain probably makes enough people in each faction hate him enough to about make up for the fact that he doesn't have a whole group against him. So there you have the name of a candidate that isn't Bugs Bunny. And it really doesn't matter so much what Dobson says, Dobson just drew attention to a fact that was allready there SoCons aren't going to all vote for Social liberal, I know that's real hard to understand, but's its probably best to accept it, plan ahead and move on.

He has other people backing his play and a billionaire for the candidate.

He may disagree with you about his importance.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I'm not seeing anywhere where it says he won't vote for Fred in the general.

I don't think it says that McCain won't be voted for in the general, but I grant the article is vague. Nonetheless, I rather think if he had said that, we'd be hearing about it. Certainly we've heard plenty about his refusal to support Rudy in the general.

You think it'd make a big difference who the third party candidate was? I don't. I recognize a third party vote as a protest vote in 2008, barring a miracle from God. Does it really matter a great deal who a protest candidate is?

As for the last comment, apparently you don't believe me when I say "Anybody but Rudy." I'll let people you credit more make any further comments here.

Its not a protest to her. Its an endorsement.

Read the linked in stuff at the bottom. They have a whole series of articles on Dobson finding the candidates to short for his bed.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Why not? Because it doesn't even come close to supporting your outlandishly false statement.

"According to Dobbson ( A man who has obviously been working to hard on a noble cause) Rudy, McCain, and Thompson are all enough to cause the third party split."

But:

Sitting out the election because your primary candidate didn't win and Guiliani did is crazy. I hear the abortion issue come up as the deal-killer, yet I have clearly heard from Guiliani that he will continue to appoint the judges we want and need to overturn Roe (strict constructionists).

Can you give me a cite for that? Because what he's said is that he'd appoint "strict constructionists" (which of course is a meaningless term) and that a "strict constructionist" (golly, it's like 1803 all over again) could uphold or overturn Roe.

Could you also point me to the part where he says he'll hold Bush's Executive policies on human life in place? Stem cells, unborn children treated as children by HHS, Mexico City, no Federal funds for abortion, etc.

Thanks!

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

The poor apostrophe. Truly the innocent victim of the mudslide in Standard Written English skills.

P.S. its fixed thanks for the heads up.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

But the urge is sometimes absolutely uncontrollable.

P.S. its fixed thanks for the heads up.
vs.
P.S. It's fixed. Thanks for the heads up.

Its is a possessive pronoun. It's is the contraction for it is.

Sincerely,
The Panda Bear (eats, shoots and leaves)

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.

ya gotta learn ta use the King's English.

I note that Giuliani isn't the first candidate to get a "no in the general" post at RedState. Ron Paul and McCain I'm sure of.

You are right, of course, but there is a difference that those two are not serious contenders for the nomination. McCain, arguably, was, though I never took his chances very seriously. A few, I think, have said it about Romney.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Everyone who thinks I have to vote for Rudy because we must support the party should re-read your first paragraph.

What people here forget is that they would NEVER vote for Ron Paul because his anti-war / anti-GWOT position would hurt the GOP worse than HRC. Electing a pro-choice president from the GOP would finish off the GOP's viability for good, while having HRC in the whithouse would not.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

not because of his anti-GWOT / anti-war, I wouldn't vote for him because America would be a better place with Hillary as president than Ron Paul.

Oz

www.first-cut-politics.blospot.com

Mike Huckabee - will appoint strict constructionist judges, who might overturn Roe v Wade. If it is too obvious that Mike Huckabee's nominee would overturn Roe, the Senate will not confirm that person. Mike Huckabee would probably sign a Federal law banning abortion nation-wide. The chance of congress passing such a law = zero. Mike Huckabee is probably the strongest social conservative with a reasonable, though small, chance of being nominated as the Republican candidate.

Rudy Giuliani - will appoint strict constructionist judges, who might overturn Roe v Wade. If the Senate doesn't confirm Rudy's judicial nominees the Senate will have a big fight on its hands - none of Rudy's nominees will face the Senate alone, and if the Senate wants a fight Rudy will give a big one. Rudy Giuliani would veto a Federal law banning abortion nation-wide, if congress ever passed such a law. However, as a practical matter, a Giuliani administration would deal with abortion pretty much the same way as a Huckabee administration would.

Hillary Clinton [or Obama] will nominate judges in the Ruth Bader Ginsburg mold, and the Senate will rubber stamp them. Abortion will always be legal in every state because it will be the most fundamental constitutional right. Hillary Clinton would probably get Congress to pass a law protecting abortionists from "hate crimes."

If abortion is your No. 1 issue it is reasonable to vote against Rudy in the primary, but in the general election Rudy is simply much better than Hillary. Defeating Hillary in the general election is important because it is good for the country, not because it also happens to be good for the Republican party.

I'd be happy to see either Rudy Giuliani or Mike Huckabee sworn in as president in January 2009.

So many here seem to be convinced that the GWOT is intended to make you safer.
In actuality, it is a smokescreen for the federal government to take you're money and invest it with the military-industrial complex, which is still not designed for Americans' safety, but for creating a global fascist state controlled mostly by European elites, mixed in with some American elites. Since I am not among the elite, I don't care to hand my freedom over to them. I really enjoyed the thought that I had the freedoms guaranteed me in our constitution, I miss that.

You seem to have missed spelling, grammar and thinking skills too.

My plea to save the apostrophe, for example, was not a plea for people to throw it in randomly and for fun. It has two specific uses.

As for thinking skills, you might want to test your wacky conspiracy theories about world government against concepts like 'evidence'.

But you won't listen to me. I am European. And I am probably elite. Well, at least, I can spell.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

A nice, classic neo-Templars in an unholy union with the Gnomes of Zurich conspiracy theory; I was looking forward to the references to the AISB. No, really: it's refreshing to see somebody familiar with the standard mythology. The trash that you get these days with their black helicopters and ZOG broadsides...

And then, you start up with the fascism.

Oy.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

America is just now beginning to join the majority of countries in regulating abortion. I harte to say this, but to end abortion will be basically impossible. But it can be regulated much more tightly, it can become much more rare. In a perfect world, would be banned. The world, I am sure all here notice, is not perfect.
We have zero likeliehood of advancing the pro-life agenda under Hillary. We have a good chance of advancing it under Giulliani. If the Christian pro-life movement was effective, this would not be the case. But it is not effective. It wins few elections, few court cases, and has achieved little.
Pro-life will not become more effective by dumping the Republican party and helping Hillary get elected.
Additionally, to assert the idea that aboriton should be the only test of whether or not to support a candidate is naive, unethical and irresponsible. Politics is about making chi=oices. If we choose to act immature, we will get immature results. If you care about reducing abortion, about ending partial birth abortion, about being pro-life, it is not possible to do claim to want those reasonable goals and to be willing to let Hillary win by default.

This is the money quote,

"If the Christian pro-life movement was effective, this would not be the case. But it is not effective. It wins few elections, few court cases, and has achieved little."

This is so true. I really believe the abortion debate needs a less confrontational more hearts and minds approach. Even if Roe is overturned and the majority of states outlaw abortion there will still be women reverting to the back alley underground techniques of decade ago. We need to convince people that life if precious and adoption is better than abortion.

Giuliani is pro-choice not pro-abortion. That is a legal distinction, but important. He has said he wants to reduce abortions. As a Christian that is also a worthy goal. We don't have the luxury of all or nothing politics.

Giuliani is pro-choice not pro-abortion. That is a legal distinction, but important. He has said he wants to reduce abortions.

Bill Clinton said the same thing. So do all the Dems running. Now, I certainly trust Giuliani a lot more than I trusted Clinton, but that isn't exactly a strong pro-life statement. Saying that is nice and all, but it is just an empty sentiment if it isn't backed up by actions.

... not as forcefully as some would like, but vastly different from Clinton's strong position that the Supreme Court must prevent the elected legislators of any state from restricting abortion

if Roe and Casey are reversed. If he believes that a "strict constructionist" can uphold Roe because of stare decisis or any other reason, then his statement doesn't mean much. I would be much more comfortable with him if he hadn't made that statement.

All Republican presidents since and including Reagan have repudiated a litmus test on Roe for their judicial appointments. Giuliani said he would appoint "strict constructionist" judges, and he doesn't know or require if those strict constructionists overrule Roe or not. For Giuliani to say his strict constructionist appointees would overrule Roe, he would be imposing the litmus test that Reagan and Bush have ruled out.

mikeleader

In your bizarre hypothetical where the next President of the United States will be either David Duke or Hillary Clinton, and voting for a third party has no influence over which of those two wins the election, I'd hope you care enough about your country to help prevent installing a Ku Klux Klansman in the White House.

Since you posed the question, how about telling us your answer. If David Duke had a real chance of winning the election, and the 3rd party candidates have no chance of winning, would you vote for Clinton when that's the only way to keep Duke from becoming President?

Most of the critics of Giuliani Derangement Syndrome aren't basing their arguments on party loyalty. The criticism is of people who believe America would be better off electing Clinton as President to put a few more Ginsburgs on the Supreme Court, when they claim to be motivated by concerns like trying to reduce the number of abortions.

Who has come out and said that a Clinton Presidency would be good? And was it anyone at Red State?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters

I did not claim the GDS sufferers' delusion is that "a Clinton Presidency would be good". Their delusion is that a Clinton Presidency would be better for America than a Giuliani Presidency.

I suppose that could be attributing more rationality to GDS'ers than is warranted. When their claim is that we should refrain from nominating Giuliani because if we do nominate Giuliani, they will choose a course of action that they claim will result in the election of Hillary Clinton, I presume they believe the consequences they predict of their Nov. 2008 choice (Clinton Presidency) is the consequence they believe is best available option for their country.

Now it's theoretically possible they believe that in a situation where the next President of the US will be either Clinton or Giuliani, they believe America would be worse off with Clinton but they proceed anyway with a course of action that they believe will result in Clinton's election. That would be even more deranged, deliberately voting in a way they believe would result in worse consequences for their country.

If someone's conduct is either irrational or unpatriotic, I should make the more charitable assumption that they are being irrational about what's best for their country.

Clinton. Would you?

I would vote third party.

On the one hand it is good to see that you do understand how hard it would be to vote for a candidate who espouses a policy that you find morally offensive.

On the other hand, it is disappointing to see that you consider racism more repugnant than infanticide.

... which means casting a vote that actually makes that less likely, even if the alternative is Clinton, rather than casting a protest vote for somebody who has no chance of winning.

The way I read your position, having David Duke as President of the United States wouldn't bother you any more than having Clinton as President.

That seems pretty clear in your statement, but I hope you will correct, clarify, retract or whatever it takes to say that however strongly you oppose Clinton for President, you believe that would be better than having a KKK guy as President.

about who is more evil, Clinton or Duke. They are both evil.

to be made to sit in the back of the bus or to be ripped limb from limb?

I don't think to Democrats it matters :=) Hillary and her legion of liberal followers have been killing the black community since Margaret Sanger just like the KKK did before the Civil Rights Movement......Duke to them should be a God but to us he is animal and for that I would sit out the election and move to another country. ala Alec Baldwin but for real.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

You do know that your 3rd party vote IS a vote for Hillary don't you?

You can find all over this site what a staunch pro-life social conservative I am. Everything on HIllary's agenda is directly opposite of what I want for my family and grandchildren. Her activist judges will not only affect abortion, but many other values voters' issues. Conservatives would have absolutely no input into her agenda.

I'm surprised myself that I now consider Guiliani to be the best candidate, but "the lesser of two evils argument" I don't think is really accurate. That is much to trite for the reality. I'm looking to his stengths: Best to fight the GWOT; best to beat Hillary.

My conscience would not let me stay home and not vote on election day. My conscience would also not let me vote 3rd party and put Hillary's agenda in place for the next 20 years. My conscience would really bother when I woke up to see the aftermath of my 3rd party vote.

===================

Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!

Third parties often don't make it to the ballot in all 50 states. In principle, at least, you might not have that option, and even if you do some of your fellow citizens might not.

It might be worth asking yourself what you would do if you literally faced a ballot with just the two names on it.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

I'm having now is that it's not just abortion. He's also talking about going to a 3rd party if Fred is nominated or if McCain is nominated.

As much as I like him outside the political arena, he's starting to get looney on us.

Oz

www.first-cut-politics.blospot.com

as much admiration as I have for Dr. Dobson, that would disturb me.

Where did Dobson talk about voting third party if McCain or Thompson were nominated? I recall critical comments, but I don't remember him saying anything near as strong about either McCain or Thompson as he has about Giuliani.

A much better pledge would have been, "I will work as hard as I can within the political system to ensure that abortion is prohibited in America."

Also, Dobson's pledge did make some sense when a pro-abortion candidate was running against an anti-abortion candidate. However, it doesn't make sense when both candidates are pro-abortion.

I would hate to grab a honeybee. However, given the choice, at gunpoint, of grabbing a honeybee or grabbing a cobra, I would grab the honeybee.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

David123

exclude a third pro-life candidate, that he can vote for?

Because it risks the success of the cobra? I think you're misunderstanding who Dobson sees as the cobra. In the same interview where he rejects voting for Rudy in the general, he also reveals he considers Rudy a worse threat to his goals.

Only if the third party candidate has a reasonable chance of beating both Rudy and Hillary and being the next president.

But if we expect the 3rd party candidate to get 10-27% of the vote what's the point? And what's the outcome?

The most likely outcome is Hillary gets elected president. Then it is virtually certain that we get leftist judges - abortion becomes embedded in concrete as the fundamental constitutional right and electing pro-life presidents from 2012 onward won't change that. And it wouldn't be that surprising to see hate-crimes laws passed that include abortionists as a protected class. How would you like to write something critical of abortion or protest at an abortion clinic and get charged with a hate crime? Also, there is no guarantee that Hillary would be a one-term president - especially if a 3rd party candidate split the republican party, and people don't forgive each other and make up by 2012.

Now the other outcome is Rudy gets elected president anyway. The pro-life community will then not be able to influence Rudy as a friend very much to nominate the right kind of judge. This might not be too bad because I think Rudy wants to nominate strict-constructionist judges anyway because they are tough on crime. But it would still be good for social conservatives to have as much friendly influence as possible in a Giuliani administration. Running a third party candidate really hurts that.

Now that is after the nomination - in the primary vote for whoever you want. But all of them, including Rudy, are much better than Hillary.

And the really sad thing about this disagreement is that I see Rudy Giuliani as being just as effective at getting Roe overturned as Mike Huckabee or any other strong social conservative would be. On abortion, Rudy is something of a drone honeybee [no stinger] and on all the other issues he makes really sweet conservative honey.

abortion becomes embedded in concrete as the fundamental constitutional right

The President doesn't have any say in Constitutional amendments. The judiciary already did it as much as they could in 1992.

electing pro-life presidents from 2012 onward won't change that

The next three most likely Supreme Court retirements are pro-Casey or pro-Roe. They may not all go before 2012. If they do, we are no worse off. By that time, there may be new opportunities.

This might not be too bad because I think Rudy wants to nominate strict-constructionist judges anyway because they are tough on crime.

Like the ones he boasted of having put on the bench in New York City? Or like the ones who treat precedent as a federal statute or part of the Constitution? "Strict constructionist" is meaningless in today's world and could include anyone.

And it wouldn't be that surprising to see hate-crimes laws passed that include abortionists as a protected class.

It already was. Her husband signed it in 1994.

But if we expect the 3rd party candidate to get 10-27% of the vote what's the point?

As I understand it, that isn't what the poll says. It talks about up to 28% of the Republican vote, so 5-14% of the total. At 27% of the total vote there would be an outside chance that the Third Party could win, and a strong chance of hanging the EC. At 14% there is no chance of the former and almost no chance of the latter. It is way below Perot's vote, and he came third in 48 states.

Now the other outcome is Rudy gets elected president anyway.

That's a stronger chance than you might think. For one thing, a vote for a third party is not a vote for Hillary. It is half a vote for Hillary. There seems little doubt that Rudy has a stronger appeal to independents and moderate Democrats than other Republicans do. If he won one vote over from Kerry's total for every two that he lost to a third party, he would make up for the loss, relative to the Democrat.

Secondly, not every vote the third party candidate has come from the GOP. At least half are sure to be from the pool of non-voters. (Do recall, non-voters have "won" every election for decades).

Take an example. The starting point is 2004: GOP 51% and Dem 48%. With a strong third party, the total turnout would be up. (This means that percentages of the 2004 vote will total more than 100). Say the third party wins 10% (of the 2004 vote). Half comes from Rudy and half from abstainers. This brings Rudy down from 51% to 46%, behind Hillary. But if he wins 3% over from among those who voted Kerry, he goes up to 49% and she goes down to 45%. He is short of an overall majority in the aggregate vote, but his margin over the Democrat (and probably his EC total) is bigger than W's.

But, as ever, it is not that simple.

So far, I have (foolishly) assumed that the third party candidate wins no votes at all from Hillary. Her vote is down only because she has lost to Rudy. It never works like that. The third party candidate could win more votes from Rudy than from Hillary, but it is inconceivable that he could win all his votes from Rudy. Anyone who has ever counted votes in an STV or instant run-off election has seen transfers cast on wholly inexplicable bases. Maoist first and conservative second with liberal trailing.

Let's try putting a name to the third party contender and see what happens. Try Alan Keyes. Rudy is most vulnerable to losing conservative voters in the south. He is somewhat insulated here by the big margins the GOP has in some southern states. Almost by definition, the bigger the GOP vote, the more votes he might lose. But Keyes gives him another safety valve. Democrats need 90% of the Black vote even to be credible in most southern states. Keyes would be sure to undercut that. By how much? I don't know. We are in the territory of guessing games.

What if it is Ron Paul? Well, he voted against the AUMF and Hillary voted for it. That is sure to undercut her vote. By how much? No idea.

Let's be clear. I am not saying a third party candidate would be a good thing. I am not saying it would help Rudy. I am saying the outcome is hard to call. Even after the election it is hard to know what the impact was. (I, for one, am convinced that Clinton would have won without a Perot candidacy in 1992). I am saying that three or four way elections are difficult to predict and the result may not be what you expect. (And don't forget that all elections are at least three way, because there is always the option of abstaining).

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

not an easy one, but a possible one.

He could have truthfully said he knew where the boy was but refused to tell the mob the answer . . . of course, he might have been lynched.

I sympathise with the monk's situation. There are many circumstances - including professionally - where maintaining a confidence is at least of equal virtue to telling the truth. I have never faced a serious professional conflict between these principles - ie, the worst I have had to do is "Miss X is not available to speak to you" when the truth is "she doesn't want to speak to you" or even "she does want to speak to you, but I have told her not to".

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of