Replies

NO real conservative would help a Democrat get elected.

Voting for some 3rd party is taking a vote away from Bush.

You and people like you are exactly the ones who gave us 8 years of Clinton.

If all the conservatives had voted for Bush I, instead of Perot or some other third party candidate, Bush I had beaten Clinton.

You are personally responsible for the damage Clinton has done to the country for 8 years.

As some pointed out, it's your choice, sure, you can vote directly for Dean, why bother pretending, but you most certainly not entitled to call yourself a conservative, when you are aiding the election of a Democrat.

Anyone aiding and enabling a Democrat to get elected, especially in these critical times is just plain enemy of the US and the American people.

Anyone aiding and enabling a Democrat to get elected, especially in these critical times is just plain enemy of the US and the American people.

This is bunk. The truth is the truth: The Republican party, under Bush II, has become the thing it hated most: A money-dispensing, vote-grubbing party more determined to do what will maintain majority (and buying votes ALWAYS works in a democracy, it's why they all eventually go broke) than what will preserve the Republic. There is no excuse for the Medicare vote, except as a grotesque, unapologetic 'triangulation' of a typically Democrat issue for purely political gain.

WHile I will hold my nose and vote for Bush next year, I don't have any illusions that he's really a conservative.

Incidentally, Clinton was the best thing that ever happened to the Republican party. He causes a major re-alignment in Congress - breaking a 40 year stranglehold his Party had on the institution. Dean can be just as devastating to liberalism. Problem is, he's going to be outflanked on liberal issues by Bush - who is going to use liberal issues to bankrupt us by the end of his second term, at which point conservatism will be discredited.

I know it's a sin not to gloat about Bush, but he has a lot to prove before I can honestly say I support him 100%. War on terror - sure, because none of the quacks in the Democrat fold have a freaking clue about the nature of the enemey. But on social issues, and particularly spending issues, Bush II has been a complete dud so far. Maybe he'll use his second term to become the draconian budget cutter his opponents claim he is. I hope so.

But this nonsense about being a traitor because one is mad enough at Bush's pandering to consider letting others elect him is just nuts.

Your position isn't exactly going to change the party either. If you vote (R) regardless of issue because they are more "conservative" than the (D)'s eventually your positions will not be supported by either party. Incrementalism is alive and well as long as you continue to chant the defeatist line of "voting third party is wasting your vote".

You're stance will lead to the socialization of the country not those who are capable of identifying a "conservative" and actually voting for them.

If by some freak of nature Dean does become president I would hope people would see what a freak he really is when he butts up against a republican controlled house and senate.

If the Democrats were in the White House when 9-11 happened, they would have had to react nearly as GW has done. The CFR, that is the Council on Foreign Relations, would have been staffing the cabinet, there would be little discernible difference between the actions of American forces. If a Democrat is elected in '04, he will embrace the effort in Iraq, and would make the war on terror his own. Just my opinion, but it is historically based. If you throw away preconceived notions of the parties, you will see they are little different.

Of course, Clinton was as evil a man as the Democrats have ever put forth, but he was an anomaly. In another election cycle, such as "08, the Republicans may be as liberal as the D's now, and the D's may be on the right. It can happen when the only thing the politicians believe in is power, and holding on to that power.

NO real conservative would help a Democrat get elected.
Voting for some 3rd party is taking a vote away from Bush.
You and people like you are exactly the ones who gave us 8 years of Clinton.

If all the conservatives had voted for Bush I, instead of Perot or some other third party candidate, Bush I had beaten Clinton.

I voted for Bush 41, but you are talking nonsense here.
Bush 41 lost because he took votes for granted, and pissed a lot of people off. No one owes a politician or party their votes, not even the Bushes, and you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise, and if you think most voters care what you think. If they get pissed off enough at a politician, then they won't vote for him. That's good, in the long run, because it engenders accountability.
Stinks that we got Clinton in the deal, but the responsibility for losing that election lies squarely with the politician who lost it:
President George H.W. Bush.
You can protest all you want, but it's the truth, and if politicians ignore the truth, they will lose elections too.

I agree. When the Pubbies around here decided to cast their votes for Perot twice, they soon were forced to realize that their votes put the Felon in the WH twice. Any vote for for anyone other than a Republican, and that means Bush, is a vote for the far left opposition and that would be a disaster. The RATS still whine about the votes that went to Buchanan and Nader in Florida. Every vote counts! Every Republican vote really counts! I hope that every Pubbie will get out the vote big time in November. We cannot allow the RATS to out vote us!