[nopardons]

You guys tried that in '92; remember? WE got 8 STINKING YEARS OF THE CLINTONS !

So, who's a " REAL " Conservative ? Tancredo ? Nope. Some yahoo ( Russ )LP candidate? Nope! The KNOW-NOTHING wannabe over at the Constitution Party ? Oh, give me a break!

Some see the glass as 1/2 full, others see it as 1/2 empty; you guys&gals not only see NO glass, but you avidly embrace cutting off your collective noses to spite your faces and want to do great harm, to boot,to this nation. Politics is the realm of the possible. What YOU desire is IMPOSSIBLE ! If FR had been around back then, you'd be part of a pack screaming about how Reagan was NOT a Conservative at all.

[Abe Froman]

We tried what in 92? Who was the supposed "conservative" candidate? Ross Perot did not garner his votes on principled, constitutional conservatism. As I already explained, his rise appeared to be the result of populism and some vague dissatisfaction with American politics in general.

And so what if it doesn't work? Bush is so bad in the areas of constitutional respect and fiscal responsibility that it is hard to believe a Democrat would be any worse. I'm not going to pull the lever for them, but at this point I'm willing to give almost anyone else a shot at it. Bush has spent and usurped the Constitution at a rate the last Democratic president could only hope to.

If I take your view that politics is the realm of the possible, then the only possibility on the horizon is out-and-out tyranny no matter who's in charge.

[jeremiah]

Polling data in '92 showed that the second choice of a majority of Perot voters was Clinton. That means without Perot in the race, Clinton wins by a bigger margin. Look it up, Bush lost because he ran a horrible campaign, and neglected to identify Clinton as a leftist.