A vote for anyone but Bush is a vote for Kerry and the end of our Republic. Those dunderheads are worse than Dims.
It's not quite that simple. If you are in a so called battleground state, it probably is the case. But if you are in a state that is a sure thing for either major candidate, say Massachusetts or Texas, then a vote for a 3rd party candidate is safely sending a message. That's all courtesy of the Electoral College.
So a libertarian who doesn't vote for Kerry is worse than a Democrat who does vote for Kerry? Sorry, but you aren't playing with a full deck, bub.
Furthermore, history teaches us that the party holding the presidiency changes on a cyclical basis, so the dunderheaded GOP scare tactic of "no Democrat must ever again occupy the White House if the country is to survive" is completely unrealistic and nothing more than a ruse to prevent people form voting their consciences.
A vote for Bush is a vote for a slower end to the Republic. Enjoy your Federal Prescription Drug benefit while walking barefoot through the TSA checkpoints. (And before you start I'll be voting for Bush, even sent him $100, but I have few illusions about him restoring the Republic)
Get real. How is voting for candidate "C" instead of "A" or "B", automatically a vote for candidate "B"?
And regardless of who wins, it's not going to be the "end of the Republic". One guy is just going to accelerate the decline a little faster than the other.
Two terms of Clinton didn't end the republic. Why would one term of Kerry, especially with a GOP Congress?