Last ditch appeal to Libertarians and Constitution voters:

11/1/2004 | agitate

[Agitate]

Is your protest vote worth 4 years of John Kerry? Are you willing to risk appeasing terrorists, sellout to the UN and the EU, more taxes, less for the military, homosexual marriage and activist judges who will be there long after the president is gone, your for vote today?

Sometimes you have to lose a battle to win the final war. Is a vote for a candidate who will not win worth 4 years of Kerry’s extreme liberalism? I hope not.

[Protagoras]

Then, with all due respect, what in the heck are you doing on a conservative forum?

I took the time to read Jim's invitation to join with like minded people. And before you as well.

BTW, I meant politically conservative, not personally.

There are so many people here who claim to be "conservative" but are actually morally bankrupt.

I'm personally conservative, but I worship God, not at the altar of government.

[gdc61]

"I prefer smaller, less intrusive government. I prefer fiscal responsibility. I prefer a government whose members have actually read the Constitution and abide by it." me too.


When close to half of the country doesn't see it as we do, getting what WE want isn't possible. but keeping this nation at status quo until we can turn this corner and bring these "compassionate conservatives"(big spenders) back in line is of the utmost importance. allowing kerry to win by default is not the answer.

[dlt]

I'm personally conservative, but I worship God, not at the altar of government.

Well said.

[Mr. Mojo]

SCOTUS

[Non-Sequitur]

When close to half of the country doesn't see it as we do, getting what WE want isn't possible. but keeping this nation at status quo until we can turn this corner and bring these "compassionate conservatives"(big spenders) back in line is of the utmost importance. allowing kerry to win by default is not the answer.

The odds of reigning in the bid spenders is not increased by having the Republicans in power rather than the Democrats. The odds of reducing the size of government is not increased by having the Republicans on power rather than the Democrats. The odds of achieving some sort of fiscal responsibility is not improved by having the Republicans in power rather than the Democrats. Neither party is interested in any of that, so the odds of achieving the kind of government we both want are not improved by electing Bush or worsened by electing Kerry.

[NYorkerInHouston]

Sorry, not convincing.

The Clinton administration's Hillary care project went from January 25, 2003 until September 26, 2004.

The 103rd Congress (1993-1995) that presided during the attempt to pass Hillary care was composed of
Senate: 57 Democrats, 43 Republicans
House: 258 Democrats, 176 Republicans, 1 Independent
And it failed... badly

Afterwards the composition (104th Congress 1995-1997) was
Senate: 52 Republicans, 48 Democrats
House: 230 Republicans, 204 Democrats, 1 Independent

With these results after trying to pass universal health care, I not worried at all

[Agitate]

I won't comment any further on your assumptions about my being Liberal, etc. Which I'm not. I'm 36, and my first time voting for a republican president, so I know there are many older wiser people here.

I'm glad you're voting for Bush, and I know it's not because someone told you to. You don't have to believe me when I say I respect the right of people to vote as they choose, but I do, even when they call me a goofy republicat.

[Protagoras]

I think advocacy of a hedonistic, self-gratifying lifestyle ("gimme my dope man!" or "I like copulating with other people of my own gender") is a mark of terrible spiritual immaturity.

I know you know better, please don't generalize. It's immature IMO.

And to say that libertarians advocate such things as part of their belief system is to bear false witness.

[Merdoug]

LAST DITCH APPEAL TO BUSHBOTS:
Realize that Bush and Repubs are NOT conservatives!! You will NEVER get a conservative government if you keep voting for the same old liers!
VOTE Libertarian/Constitution for a CONSERVATIVE in '08!

[Agitate]

The action of casting a vote against Bush, whether it's for Kerry, Peroutka, or Badnarik, is the true attack on freedom in this election.

No, trying to scare others into voting for your candidate is the true attack on freedom. Voting for who you want is exercising that freedom.

IMHO, I don't think anyone is trying to scare, I for one truly believe this is an emergency. I honestly believe Kerry will reek havoc on this country in many ways. Bush is not perfect, but Kerry is not interested in what's good for us. This is an emergency appeal saying please keep Kerry out. As long as we are free, we can debate amongst ourselves. I believe Kerry threatens that freedom.

[The Hollywood Conservative]

How do you figure that? Sure there are safe seats, but the entire house is up for reelection every 2 years... And there are critical elections where, despite the conventional wisdom, the majority party becomes the minority over night (1994). There is ONE thing we can do, RIGHT NOW, to INSURE that liberals don't have free reign in this country, and that's to vote for George Bush!

[Just another Joe]

I'm sorry, but I've heard this so many times it's becoming repetitive.

I vote my conscience, not a party.

"A third party vote is a vote for Democrats", "or Republicans".
BS!

If more people would vote for who they believe, whether Republican, Democrat, Constitutional, Libertarian, whatever, we wouldn't have a "Two Party System" where people feel that they have to vote for the lesser of two evils.

A third party vote is not throwing away your vote, not voting for the other party, and not voting for the, "lesser of two evils".

If you want to vote for President Bush - fine. If you want to vote for Kerry - fine. If you want to vote for a third party - fine.
VOTE! THAT'S the thing. in the words of the Nike commercial, "Just do it."

[Agitate]

Ok, I'll bite. Here's why I will not vote for Bush.

1. Federal government now involved with marriage counseling and distribution of tax dollars to so-called "faith based" organizations, ie, churches, mosques, synagogues, etc.

2. Horrific deficit spending, fiscal irresponsibility.

3. Corporate welfare. Halliburton is, I believe, just a drop in the bucket.

4. A war in a foreign county which, apparently, is now justified by the idea that we must impose our values on a foreign people. (PS: I did support the Afghanistan action.)

5. A belief that the American people need government big-brother protection more than they need the Bill of Rights and other constitutional guarantees. (We, the people, are not wimps.)

6. Will Kerry be good for our country? No. But the above is a liberal agenda, not a conservative agenda. So my last reason for not voting for Bush is this: the Republican Party needs to clean up its act and reexamine its commitment to small government, and allegience to the Consitution and the principles on which our country is based.

First, thanks for the civilized answer.

Second, I agree with you, especially points 5 and 6. I just believe with all my heart we won't even be able to fix those problems with Kerry in office, and that they will just get worse. Under republicans I think we have much better chance of heading in the right direction this time around. I now believe that at this point the Democrats are more socialist than anything, and will work to limit the people's right to work for change in government.

[NJ Neocon]

Uhm...what is GOTV?

[BlessingsofLiberty]

As a staunch Conservative, I have been more than unhappy with President Bush on many levels. However, I am not a fool either. To me, there is but one choice here. John Kerry is the antithesis of everything I believe in and hold sacred.

If this country elects Kerry to the Presidency, I believe we will never be the same as a country or as a people. In my opinion, we barely survived Clinton and we are still feeling the affects of his 8 years of folly and Liberalism.

It is nice to have a idealistic, philosophical view when times are stable, when we aren't at war or when the enemies of this country, both foreign and domestic, aren't at our gates. But, unfortunately, we aren't in those times. This election is critical to this Country's survival.

I am proudly going to the polls tommorrow and vote for President Bush. I consider it my way of thumbing my nose at the Socialists, Liberals, Moveon.org, George Soros, France, Germany,(all the Eurosocialists), UN, Clintons, and the known liar and traitor John Kerry.

I will also pray for the USA and silently remember those who gave me the opportunity to vote once again in a free society. I suggest we all give thanks for our many Blessings of Liberty.

[gdc61]

"reigning in the bid spenders" is a conserative view.
"reducing the size of government" is a conserative view.
"fiscal responsibility" is a conserative view.
and you prepose that Kerry will not affect any change in these areas? you're a joke.
with Bush, at least we have an ability to move in the right direction. with kerry and the media, we fight a losing battle to change direction.
vote Bush !! or join the socialist party.

[Broadus]

Voting Constitution may make a person feel better, but in the end it is a vote for the very opposite, John Kerry.

"NO IT IS NOT...It is a vote for whoever they vote for...

Further and statistically speaking it represents only a half of a vote for the other side, assuming it is a vote for the other side at all.

If the vote is tied and and a voter defects to the libertarian party...then the tie is broken by only 1 vote.

If the voter indeed 'votes for the other side', then the tie is broken by 2.

200 - 200 --> 200 - 199 = delta 1
200 - 200 --> 201 - 199 = delta 2

Its all semantic nonsense...a vote for a third candidate is not a vote for the otherside...its a vote for a third candidate"

With all due respect, I still contend that, in essence, a vote for Peroutka is a vote for Kerry. This, of course, is based upon the assumptions that (1) a person who votes for the Constitution candidate is to the right of President Bush and that (2) the person would vote at all if the two major party candidates if they could not vote third party. I cannot imagine someone voting for the Constitution candidate would even consider voting for the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. Of Bush and Kerry, surely Bush is more acceptable than Kerry.

Again, if we had a parliamentarian form of government, a vote for Peroutka could have influence in the government. In the U.S., though, it will be only a protest vote. Is it a vote? Yes. Will it matter? No. Honestly, I wish it did. I could definitely vote for Peroutka, but if there is a pro-life candidate who is electable and one who has absolutely no chance, I will vote for the one who can be elected.

If the Republican Party drifts to where pro-lifers have no voice, then it will be time for all of us to go with a third party. Where life is concerned, I cannot cast a ballot for anyone who declares that he will "protect" a woman's right to an abortion. Those who refuse to protect the most defenseless among us, and certainly unborn children qualify, will receive divine judgment. Until that time comes, though, I will vote Republican.

[Non-Sequitur]

"reigning in the bid spenders" is a conserative view..."reducing the size of government" is a conserative view..."fiscal responsibility" is a conserative view.

And we do not have a conservative House, a conservative Senate, or a Conservative in the White House.

and you prepose that Kerry will not affect any change in these areas? you're a joke

The joke is expecting Bush will affect any changes in those areas, either.

with Bush, at least we have an ability to move in the right direction.

Not based on his performance during his first term, or the performance of the Congress since teh GOP took control.

vote Bush !! or join the socialist party.

Thanks, but if you approve of the way things have gone in the past 4 years then I think that you would be happier with the Socialists than I would.