VANITY: The best way to keep America a sovereign free nation is to keep the Democrats out of power!

Free Republic

[My2Cents]

Good comments. If any party needs to be sent a message, it needs to be sent to the DEMOCRATS, who remain (since the Clintons) the party of perjury and obstruction of justice, the party of appeasement, the party of sedition, the party of pre-natal infanticide, the party of corruption; the party of election fraud; the party of race-baiting; the party of class envy and warfare; the party of demagoguery; the party of hand-wringers, gloom-and-doomers, naysayers and nitpickers...

Maybe the "hand-wringers, gloom-and-doomers, naysayers and nitpickers" on FR feel more at home with the Democrats.

[My2Cents]

You may be the exception on FR. I've accused many of the Bush-bashers of never being part of his "base," and as probably being Buchanan voters in 2000. No one has responded to tell me I'm wrong.

[onyx]

My strategery would be to vote LP (like I almost always do), hope Bush looses by a margin that the right-wing third party candidates picked up and get 4 years of gridlocked govt. That will give the RP 4 years to realize they can't take the right wing for granted.

You need professional help. That is as sick as it gets. It's also utter stupidity and an effort in futility.

[My2Cents]

My strategery would be to vote LP (like I almost always do), hope Bush looses by a margin that the right-wing third party candidates picked up and get 4 years of gridlocked govt. That will give the RP 4 years to realize they can't take the right wing for granted.

The Libertarian Party is hardly "right wing" on many issues. Too many dopers, pro-prostitution, and isolationists for my tastes. But go ahead and vote LP, cause Bush to lose by a hair, and then let a Democrat nominate up to four Supreme Court judges who will serve for the next 30 years.

[onyx]

The "right wing" has never voted GOP so the threat and stratergy to vote 3rd party is meaningless.

[Viking2002]

Amen to that - I never assumed you were part of the Deanie Baby corwd. LOL

[Viking2002]

Amen to that - I never assumed you were part of the Deanie Baby crowd. LOL

[nopardons]

That's the whole point! FR's Libertarians, Big l or little, disagree with the LP pkatform about 75-85%,or more, but still call themselves Libertarians. This is illogical, in the extreme. Dems and GOPers don't disagree with their respective party's platforms that much.

I don't want Rudy to run for president. CCP where I ever said that he's a " hero " of mine. And since you also don't know what my stance is on abortion, don't presume. I never talk about that topic here, except to condemn PBA.

Just give up, Canadian transplant and FR newbie you really aren't up for a FR de bate. ;^)

[nopardons]

That's the whole point! FR's Libertarians, Big l or little, disagree with the LP platform about 75-85%,or more, but still call themselves Libertarians. This is illogical, in the extreme. Dems and GOPers don't disagree with their respective party's platforms that much.

I don't want Rudy to run for president. CCP where I ever said that he's a " hero " of mine. And since you also don't know what my stance is on abortion, don't presume. I never talk about that topic here, except to condemn PBA.

Just give up, Canadian transplant and FR newbie you really aren't up for a FR debate. ;^)

[My2Cents]

Correct. The dedicated third-partyists have so marginalized themselves that they very rarely impact elections. Does anyone think the Democrats "got the message" from the impact of Nader's vote in 2000? About 97% of voters recognize that voting third-party to send a message is about as effective as spitting into the wind.

[He Rides A White Horse]

I don't know what I'm going to do this election. I am most grateful to the President for his service to the pro-life cause, and he has done many positive things as Mr Robinson states.

I've listened to various theories as to why he is doing this (immigration); I have arrived at the conclusion that it is going to cause extreme damage with this policy. I'm not saying intentionally, but it won't matter if it was done intentionally or not. The end result will be the same.

As I've stated before, the Clintons spent eight years flooding the country with Mexican and other Third World immigrants; that was part of an intentionally conceived plan to tip the demographic scales as it were. You know, Hillary "Trash the Electoral College While We're Doing It" Clinton. Put these people on a fast track to citizenship just in time for Election 2000. We saw the ruse. We knew what they were doing, and what the outcome would be.

Now the President is adopting a strategy that is going to lead to the same state, in my opinion. We can assume his intentions are good, many here (and probably he himself) think they will be won over by the Republican Party.

I don't think it's going to play out that way. These illegal immigrants are lawbreakers who want handouts and social services; I have no doubt as to what party they are going to gravitate towards eventually. The party of lawbreakers and entitlements.

So we'll start with 8 million as some estimate, but that will be the tip of the iceberg. These people will have children here, they'll have liberal lawyers and judges conspiring to keep them here. They won't be leaving when 3 or 4 years are up as everybody is optimistically projecting.

In four years, eight million will become twelve or fourteen or even twenty million. Twenty million new Democrat voters for 2008.

America is not prepared to handle such instability, especially in the condition we find it today. I'm not trying to be a pessimist; all I know is that I have a sinking feeling about all of this.

I feel as if it's vote for the President, get him four more years, after which I fear we'll not see a conservative President for many years to come due to demographics. We'll be completely overrun by then. I wonder if this is how the men at the Alamo felt.

[George W. Bush]

I am a 24/7 member and have the third hour of his radio show of 1-29-04 on my HD.

Can we save and archive the shows, like on HD or DVD-R? Streaming often fails via my satellite and is almost frustrating. If I can download it all in one shot, that would be good. Then I could listen to it, Tivo-style.

Dang, you've got me thinking hard about it. Those three sample clips up on his page today look like Rush is singing from the same page as a lot of other conservatives. So much of the same stuff we're seeing right here at FR.

What, did I arrive at the party late? I thought it was just me.

I resisted joining the Rush site before but looking around there, I can see they've really improved it in terms of content. I do know we need someone to lead the conservative movement to put some fear into a big-spending GOP congress. We certainly did it before with Rush!

Can you get a sign-up bonus by referring me?

[Wolfstar]

What a hoot. I love this "send a message" crowd. They are denser than lead. Total votes cast in the typical presidential election is around 100,000,000, of whom minor party voters total around 1% to 2% nationwide. Of that 1 to 2 million, how can anyone possibly determine who the true Green, Reform, Libertarian, Constitution, or Communist party true believers are vs. those just "sending a message?"

Furthermore, if the "send a message" vote is split among any or all the minor parties, how the heck can anyone determine what the message is?

The only bona fide message on election day is the one sent by the tens of millions of people who vote either Democrat or Republican. It's the only message received in Washington and among the nation's media. It's the only one that matters among those who will govern the nation.

"Sending a message" by voting minor party is like spitting into the teeth of a hurricane.

[Sabertooth]

I've accused many of the Bush-bashers of never being part of his "base," and as probably being Buchanan voters in 2000. No one has responded to tell me I'm wrong.

Really? No one?

And why do you keep using the term "Bushbasher?"

Do you like the term "Bushbot?"

The use of either ters is part of the problem.

[Paulus Invictus]

Thanks Jim! I'm sending your excellent list to the local leftist Gannett rag as a letter to the editors. Let's see if they will print it.

[Sabertooth]

The dedicated third-partyists have so marginalized themselves that they very rarely impact elections.

Third party candidates impacted elections in 1948, 1960, 1968, 1980, 1992, 1996, and 2000. That's seven of the fourteen Presidential Elections in over a half century, including four of the last six and the last three in a row.

The Democrats have won six of the fourteen in that time, and on four of those occasions -- Truman ('48), Kennedy ('60), Clinton ('92), and Clinton ('96) -- they won by a plurality. That means that the Democrats won the Presidency on four occasions when the Republicans plus third parties outpolled them. In fact, only Johnson ('64) and Carter ('76) have gotten more than 50% of the popular vote for the Democrats since FDR's final victory in 1944.

In contrast, of the eight Presidential Elections that the GOP has won in that time, only Nixon ('68) and President Bush (2000) won with less than a majority of the popular vote.

In recent electoral history, third parties are quite likely to impact Presidential elections.

[NYCVirago]

Bump. I couldn't agree more!

[citizen]

Bush & the Republicans will get my vote only if they need it in close races in my state.

Other than that, my vote will be far better used in some form of meaningful message vote against the disappointing excesses of the Republicans since gaining the WH and both houses of Congress. And against such future excesses, future amnesty, etc.

Giving Bush & Co. a landslide victory with 0% dissent simply rubber stamps all the bad stuff, no need to list it all again, we've done plenty of that lately.

Bush deserves to be reelected, but with serious reservations on some important issues.

***an ex-Republican base voter***

[Paul C. Jesup]

You know, run-on elections between the top two winners would solve this problem, but when have politicans ever wanted to solve problems.

[Paul C. Jesup]

You know, run-off elections between the top two winners would solve this problem, but when have politicans ever wanted to solve problems.