Third-Party Peril. President Bush could have some serious 2004 worries.

NRO ^ | October 20, 2003, 8:31 a.m. | John Derbyshire

[Sonny M]

Moreover, at least 50% of Perot's vote, and about 80% of McCain's, came from LEFTIES, not from the conservative right.

I'm not positive about that regarding McCain. I know alot of conservatives who backed McCain, not because they thought he was more liberal, but out of pure ignorancy. I knew a few people who thought that Bush was lying in regards to tax cuts, and liked Forbes, but since they didn't think Forbes could win, they wanted McCain. (the fact that he is pretty liberal, was unknown to them). I would say cross over lib's definatley wanted McCain, but so did a lot of misguided conservatives. Rush himself was out at one point forced to set people straight daily on his show.

Perot got a weird mix, of disgrunteld republicans, unions, protectionists, liberals, and moderates, independents and centerists. By the way, in 2000, Perot endorsed Dubya, and seems to have gone more rightward as of late. I know a few people who voted for Perot, sinple because they were furious that first president Bush raised there taxes and didn't do anything conservative domestically. They (falsely) thought that by voting perot, it would send a message to republicans, and Clinton would be a one termer. They have since seen the error of there ways.

[american spirit]

No Bush cost Bush the election....remember the alleged no new taxes pledge among other things? He also had the chance to bring Clinton's lack of morals to the forefront of the campaign (Gennifer Flowers) but did not in typical bumbling Bush fashion. Now, Bush Jr. is in the process of creating a "perfect storm" that will most likely drive him out of office much the same way.

[Capt. Tom]

Nader's votes came 100% from Gore voters.

And let's hope Nader runs again.
Or better yet, Sharpton runs as a Green Party candidate for President.
Or even better a Nader/Sharpton ticket. - Tom

[Texas_Dawg]

This makes the point...leadership does not support the population on this issue.

So if the majority of people are in favor of doing what you want, why wouldn't a smart politician adopt that position and get elected on it?

[r9etb]

I'm sure 2004 will be the Libertarian Party's big break. Just think of the votes a Blue-Guy/Rick Stanley ticket would bring in....

[Consort]

No

Yes.

Bush cost Bush the election....remember the alleged no new tapxes pledge among other things?

Remember how Clinton then showed us what a real tax increase looked like? And then the scandals, and the 370+ Liberal judges and 2 Liberal Supreme Court Justices he appointed, etc, etc. Bush would never have done that. Bush should have been reelected whether he liked it or not.

He also had the chance to bring Clinton's lack of morals to the forefront of the campaign (Gennifer Flowers) but did not in typical bumbling Bush fashion.

Nope. The voters knew all about Clinton and should never have voted for him. "It's the voters, stupid."

Now, Bush Jr. is in the process of creating a "perfect storm" that will most likely drive him out of office much the same way.

If the voters are still stupid enough to let that happen, they deserve to be screwed where it hurts. If you did not vote to reelect Bush 41, then you are part of the problem. It's the voters. That's the way it is. And the Clintons are not through with us yet, thanks to the voters.

[Jennikins]

As to the "illegal immigration" issue--to MOST people, it is a minor irritation, not a source of major political "juice".

How desperately wrong you are! We are being "FLOODED" here in CAlifornia with illegal aliens. President Bush has encouraged it. If you are not aware of what is truly going on, then do not generalize and speak for everyone, especially me. I've got alot to say about this, and to me, this is the single MOST IMPORTANT issue facing our country today, that in the end is set to destroy our United States completely.

George Bush will never get my vote. I'd vote for third party anytime, and so will millions of others. The problem is, that the two parties have taken over, and no one else can get any media help, whatsoever. They are essentially, locked out. So we're back to square 1 all over again., just like the last election. The other two parties were not even allowed to debate.

So much for fairness and honesty.!

[Wonder Warthog]

"How desperately wrong you are! We are being "FLOODED" here in CAlifornia with illegal aliens. President Bush has encouraged it. If you are not aware of what is truly going on, then do not generalize and speak for everyone, especially me. I've got alot to say about this, and to me, this is the single MOST IMPORTANT issue facing our country today, that in the end is set to destroy our United States completely."

Oh, I'm sure there is high urgency within the states along the Mexican border, but once you move away from there, the problem basically drops off the radar. It isn't anywhere nearly in the same rank as the War on Terror and the state of the economy---not even close. I'm in Washington state (near the "other" border), and it simply isn't a topic of discussion on any significant scale.

Now, I agree with you that it is VERY IMPORTANT--both short term from a War on Terror perspective, and longer term for adequate assimilation of LEGAL immigrants---but I think thee and me are in a distinct minority when one looks at the electorate as a whole.

[grania]

So if the majority of people are in favor of doing what you want, why wouldn't a smart politician adopt that position and get elected on it?

Like the survey suggests, there is a certain elitism and attitude that they know better than we do...from both major parties.

[Jennikins]

If you live in Washington, then I believe you do not know the extent of what we are living with here. To add to our fears, are the statements of MALDEF, and MECHA, and other Mexican groups that insist that this is their land, and they have the right to take it over. Believe me, that it a huge worry because of these threats.

[LS]

I understand the Perot phenomenon. I bit very briefly, mainly because I was sick of people fiddling with the deficits and with the continuation of a large bureaucracy. But when I saw that he not only was unwilling, but incapable, of getting to specifics, I returned to Bush.

[LS]

Really. If Sharpton even had a chance to derail some of the biggies, I'd send him money. But right now, Dean is doing a fine job of taking the Dem Party down the tubes, and you know what they say about "When you see your enemy self-destructing, stay out of the way."

[bimbo]

I really am amazed neither party has willingly attacked this issue.

Why should they? The Democrats get their masses of poor voters, and the Republicans get their cheap laborers. Pat Buchanan spoke to these issues in the 2000 campaign.

I am not afraid of a third party ... but I do expect Hillary's campaign slogan to be: "I'll shut down those borders, and stop the job exodus." She won't, of course, but it will get her elected.

[Hollywoodghost]

McClintock for President. VOTE Reform Party. Tinfoil hats at each rally!

[american spirit]

Still have to disagree. What you don't seem to understand is that like it or not, in the minds of most voters perception is reality and they vote accordingly. Due to fact that Bush Sr. reneged on his no new taxes pledge most voters decided he was not a man of his word and/or incompetent for letting himself get painted into such a corner. Sure, Clinton & co. was a disaster but if Bush and his advisors had gone after him with a no-holds barred approach Clinton would've been nothing more than a historical footnote......but they didn't and the country suffered mightily.

Now, Jr. is following daddy's path by alienating Americans on issues like illegal immigration, the Patriot Act, Iraq, assault weapons, etc. and unfortunately many of these people are voters! Maybe they're not up to speed on all the issues but the fault for that lies with Bush and his advisors in educating as well as informing us about their motives. It shouldn't be too difficult but the Rep. party has done a terrible job of building a conservative consensus over the last 10 yrs. or so.

[Consort]

Still have to disagree.

I know.

What you don't seem to understand is that like it or not, in the minds of most voters perception is reality and they vote accordingly.

And what you don't seem to understand is doesn't make what they did right — what they did was wrong and if you don't realize that by now, I can't help you. They voted for the wrong person or they helped the wrong person win; they screwed up; really screwed up.

Due to fact that Bush Sr. reneged on his no new taxes pledge most voters decided...

Most voters were wrong; they should have voted for Bush. I know that and you know that. I did not like the "read-my-lips" blunder and I didn't like the lousy campaign that Bush ran. But I knew better than to do anything that would help Clinton win. I voted for Bush instead of for Perot or Clinton or another Third Party candidate or not voting at all.

Now, Jr. is following daddy's path by alienating Americans on issues like illegal immigration, the Patriot Act, Iraq, assault weapons, etc. and unfortunately many of these people are voters!

That is no excuse to vote in the Democrats and make things worse on those very issues and others that are important to us.

[Wonder Warthog]

"If you live in Washington, then I believe you do not know the extent of what we are living with here. To add to our fears, are the statements of MALDEF, and MECHA, and other Mexican groups that insist that this is their land, and they have the right to take it over. Believe me, that it a huge worry because of these threats."

I repeat, I AGREE WITH YOU. The problem ain't me--it is a lot of other folks who are not yet aware of the signficance of the problem. I'm well aware of the wishes of the "La Raza" types and the impact the illegals are having on the Mexican border states and elsewhere.

[Deport Billary]

When the real costs are itemized, a lot of that popularity evaporates.

What about the cost of socialist Democrats running the federal government from 2015 to the end of the republic? Think long-term.

[Poohbah]

What about the cost of socialist Democrats running the federal government from 2015 to the end of the republic? Think long-term.

Maybe I haven't made myself clear.

When the average voter hears "close the borders and deport the illegals," he says "right on!"

When he hears what that really means:

• Large-scale imposition of federal checkpoints on our highways (checkpoints that would apply to EVERYONE);
• A very large increase in the number of soldiers or federal law enforcement officers (and the associated taxes to pay those individuals);
• Plus various defense-in-depth measures (frequent workplace checks, military patrols along our beaches, a national ID card system, et cetera)

...he doesn't like the idea so much.

If you wish to impose such measures, it is incumbent on you to persuade the average voter that such measures are actually a benefit to the average voter.