Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: The Hound Passer
No, actually true. Anyone who doesn't believe a vote for Barr or similar 3rd party candidate isn't a vote for Obama doesn't remember recent history well. In '92 to the Perot vote took away plenty from G.H.W. Bush to get Clinton elected with just 43% of the vote, in '00 the Nader vote siphoned enough from Gore to elect G.W. Bush.

We simply have a philosophical disagreement about the moral responsibility of a voter in America so your statistics don't matter to me.

If Hillary Clinton switched parties and ran against Obama in 2012 as slightly more moderate candidate (both of them being extreme liberals), are you telling me you would vote for Hillary? If not, where do you draw the line? I draw the line at McCain..

225 posted on 10/08/2008 10:11:13 AM PDT by Swordfished
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies ]


To: Swordfished
We simply have a philosophical disagreement about the moral responsibility of a voter in America so your statistics don't matter to me. If Hillary Clinton switched parties and ran against Obama in 2012 as slightly more moderate candidate (both of them being extreme liberals), are you telling me you would vote for Hillary? If not, where do you draw the line? I draw the line at McCain..

First your scenario is ridiculous. Hillary is not going to switch parties, and if she did she would not get the Republican nomination.

Now with that said, your "moral responsibility" philosophy seems contrived to me. As a conservative, you think it's "moral" to allow Obama to become President with a clear left wing majority in the House and near fillibuster proof majority in the Senate? You well know there would be virtually nothing stopping Obama/Reid/Pelosi from enacting huge new government programs that would make the "bailout" look like trick-or-treat sized candy bars. The damage will be so deep and wide that not even a new GOP majority in 2010 could undo the new government programs that some voters will then take for granted. This is what Dems since FDR have done to ensure power. They now will have the power and the excuse for the New Deal, part II. Maybe Part III if you count the Great Society as New Deal II.

Then we get to the courts. Not just the S.Ct., but the lower courts as well. Obama would be free to fill vacancies up with lawyers that deeply admire the 9th Circuit Court, and maybe some that don't think that court goes far enough. We are talking about judges that will willingly undo any law they deem "conservative," even if that law is constitutional.

And you'll allow this to preserve your personal "moral responsibility." Maybe that's how it works in an academic dissertation. In the practical world that is called enabling.

So yes, I will vote for McCain because there are only two people that have a possibility of being elected and he is the more conservative of the two. He may go-along-to-get-along with Congress on a lot of stuff I won't like. But when it comes to the important stuff like protecting the country and fighting overt socialist power grabs and appointing decent judges I think he'll be on the right side. I know Obama will never be. Bottomline: even Ronald Reagan knew that politics mean there was a time to be practical and strike a deal with Tip O'neil. This is a time also to be practical.

231 posted on 10/08/2008 11:33:42 AM PDT by The Hound Passer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson