'Ten Commandments judge' won't rule out challenge to Bush

WorldNetDaily ^ | February 2, 2004 | WorldNetDaily.com

[GOPcapitalist]

Moore could well be the "Ralph Nader of the right," to use his term. This guy would attract a lot of conservatives to his banner, especially since so many conservatives are disgruntled with Bush and the Republican Congress right now.

You are correct, nor is this a new trend in the history of presidential elections. No southern third party has had the effect of a "spoiler" in recent years, but they have won several states before. Consider:

In 1948 southern Democrat Strom Thurmond won four southern states and got one of the electoral votes in a Tennessee.

In 1960 southern Democrat Harry F. Byrd won Mississippi, the majority of Alabama, and one elector in Oklahoma.

In 1968 southern independent George Wallace won five southern states and got an electoral vote in North Carolina.

I could easily see Moore winning a state or two - probably in this same region. If it were close enough it could cost Bush the election.

[GOPcapitalist]

ROFL!!!!! Please tell me you don't actually believe this.

It's a long shot and probably wishful thinking, but stranger things have happened.

[GOPcapitalist]

Roy Moore has to win exactly ONE conservative state to throw the Presidential election to Congress.

That is true. Suppose this were 2000 again and the Dem got 266 votes like Gore did winning the same states (yes, the census changed that around a little but just suppose for the moment). Bush got 271 in 2000. If Moore had run and won in the most likely state to support him, Alabama, that would have put Bush at 262 to 266 to 9 and the election would have gone into the House. It gets even wierder from there though as a partisan majority does NOT guarantee any candidate a victory there. Elections in the House give each state congressional delegation 1 single vote for a total of 50 votes cast for president. I do not know for certain who holds a majority in the delegations of each state, but some are definately split and if this had happened in 2000 Bush's home state of Texas would have actually voted for Gore!

[TBP]

What doesn't wash, that judicial selections live on long after a President is gone and his nominees have been consevative?

Are they? What is the evidence to support that? Some are likely conservatives, others probably aren't. Remember how many of his father's nominees and President Reagan's nominees were supposed to be conservatives? Now those people, with a couple of exceptions, are holding up the liberal wing of the court. I don't trust this Republicn court appointment argument. Bush's people are already talking about putting Al Gonzales -- a pro-abort -- on the Supreme Court, because W wants to be the Preisdent who appoints the first Hispanic. Do we know that Bill Pryor is a strict constructionist? His conduct in teh Moore affair suggests otherwise. I would oppose his nomination. Estrada was a good conservative apparently, but of course, he is the one guy who had to withdraw. What do we really know about the other nominees?

[ohioWfan]

If not for the war.....

IF not for the safety and security of this country. IF not for the future and well being of our military. IF not for our very survival.......

Any Conservative who runs on a third party ticket to oppose this President BECAUSE of the war, is risking our very future..........

If Judge Moore cares about the country, he'll not send it into the hands of the RATS.......

[ohioWfan]

Wake up!!

If you WILL work to elect a conservative who is not gwb, you WILL work to elect a RAT who will destroy this country.

For the sake of this country, WAKE UP!

[ohioWfan]

I believe you are correct, it's like Deja Vu all over again.

The two situations and the two Presidents are not the same.

Wishful thinking on your part??

It never ceases to amaze me that the 'true' conservatives are in perfect alignment with the RATS when it comes to this President........

[WhiteGuy]

you WILL work to elect a RAT who will destroy this country.

Listen, the entire premise that any vote that is not for the gop candidate is a vote for dnc candidate, is false.

It is based on the idea that all the votes belong to one party or the other.

Each vote belongs to the individual voter and should be cast at his or her discretion.

In a representative republic it is the only voice a citizen has.

[ohioWfan]

In a representative republic it is the only voice a citizen has.

Then YOUR voice will be working de facto to elect a RAT.

You may not like the President, but there will only be two viable candidates. If you don't vote for him, you will help the other.

It's the reality of the system, like it or not.

[WhiteGuy]

Then YOUR voice will be working de facto to elect a RAT.

This is the falicy. It is simply not true.

My vote is my voice, I will not vote for the dnc candidate.

Therefore I have not helped that candidate. My voice has not helped that candidate.

[ohioWfan]

Denying it doesn't change the facts, WhiteGuy.

The less Conservatives who vote for President Bush, the greater the likelihood that John F. Kerry will be elected.

If you can live with what that will mean to our national security, our military, our sovereignty as a nation, and our morality, go ahead and vote as you wish........

Just be honest about it.

[WhiteGuy]

Just be honest about it.
---I couldn't be more honest


go ahead and vote as you wish........

-- You can count on it.

This is still a free country.


I'm just wondering, where is your line in the sand?

Is there any deed, policy or position that would cause you to withdraw your support in an election fro the gop candidate?

Is voting the party line more important than your principles?

What if, when crunch time arrived, the election was so close that a single policy decision could sway the entire election.

What if that single policy decision was the appointment of a supreme court justice.

What if the country were polarized over which one, of two, the president would nominate.

One being totally pro-life, the other being totaler pro abortion.

Nominating the pro abortion judge swings enough moderates to the gop to secure the election, the pro life judge would force the moderates to the other camp.

Would you still vote for the gop candidate? Would you have the courage to stand for your beliefs? What would you do?

I don't want an answer from you, I just wonder where the line in the sand is.

I know where mine is.

[votelife]

I'm from Alabama. I think Riley's in big trouble after his tax vote. I think the Dem congress will shut him out and Moore can pretty much walk into Montgomery if he wants to.

[ohioWfan]

My line in the sand is abortion. Very close are a strong military, a strong national security, and a strong stand on morality.. President Bush meets all of those standards, and then some.

What I'm trying to get you to is the bottom line.

The candidate who will win...... if there are enough of you who demand that President Bush must align himself with all of your political ideals to 'earn' your vote, and who vote for a third party candidate..... will be a Democrat who stands for NOTHING that you stand for, and accomplished NONE of your goals.

As I said, you may well make that choice, but if John Kerry is our next President, you have to live with your part in making that happen....

[southland]

I believe you are pretty much on the money...

The Demos will try to discredit all Republicans including Moore and Riley. Then the Demo nominee will have less oposition.
CDC

[WhiteGuy]

My line in the sand is abortion. Very close are a strong military, a strong national security, and a strong stand on morality.


So if your candidate compromised on the abortion issue, would you still vote for him?

If your candidate compromised on national security, would you still vote for him?

What if your candidate's actions were discovered to be not so morally straight after all, would you still vote for him?

I'll guess you still would. - It's just a guess -
but I think you would. See, I think you might believe that the most important thing is to be on the winning side, at any cost.

I might also suggest that it is you and not the dissatisfyed conservative, who are the true base for the current majority party.

Our president believes that there are more registered voters who vote out of fear, that who vote for principle.

If by some weird quark of nature, president bush is defeated in november, it will be his own fault.

[ohioWfan]

I'll guess you still would. - It's just a guess - but I think you would. See, I think you might believe that the most important thing is to be on the winning side, at any cost.

Well, it's a bad guess and your conclusion completely wrong.......but not at all surprising, because you clearly put everyone who doesn't see things exactly your way and who support the President, in a little box that matches your own bias.

But that's OK........the Dems do the same thing. We're used to it.

[ohioWfan]

Oh, btw, the President is NOT going to be defeated in November because his base........his REAL base......is going to be energized and working hard to make sure this country doesn't go swirling back down the drain again........

[WhiteGuy]

"his REAL base"

Ha !

You made my point!

Nice interacting with you today!

It's been entertaining.

Enjoy your freeping!

[ohioWfan]

What in the world are you talking about??

You jumped to illogical conclusions based on your arrogant supposition that I have no core values, and then find it entertaining that I call you on it?? LOL!

Give me a break, WHITE guy. President Bush has the support of 90% of Republicans, and WE are his base. We don't agree with him on everything, but are wise enough to support him because of the bigger picture.

It's obvious that YOU are not.......