Posted on 11/01/2004 9:16:28 AM PST by SeasideSparrow
Dear third-party voter,
A tragedy is about to occur.
I am not talking about the tragedy, the unthinkable calamity that will befall America should John Kerry be elected president of the United States. That a person with a history of actual treason should become commander in chief of America's armed forces during wartime is more bizarre and terrifying than any "Manchurian Candidate" scenario Hollywood could concoct.
No, I'm referring to a different tragedy. The tragedy that idealistic, patriotic, constitutionally minded Christian Americans very possibly will be the ones that actually turn over this nation to Kerry – a man who opposes, and is intent on destroying, every one of their most cherished values.
How could this be?
By most accounts, the presidential race is a dead heat. The fact is, several swing states in the 2000 election were settled by just a few thousand votes. This time around the race looks every bit as close – so every single vote counts.
My friends, the hour is late and the stakes high, so let me just say it straight:
A vote for Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party, or for the Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik – regardless of whatever personal virtues they possess, or those of their party's platform – amounts to a vote for Kerry. After all the high-sounding words have been spoken in justification of voting for either one, this is the undeniable fact that remains. It's the most basic mathematics possible, so I won't insult anyone by explaining it.
Furthermore, the "lesser of two evils" argument that I've heard 1,000 times – usually stated as "voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil" – is shallow and unworthy of those good folks who hold the Constitution and Judeo-Christian heritage so dear. This view, with its emphasis on personally choosing not to support any evil whatsoever, is held largely by religious people, mostly Christians.
But every Christian also knows he or she is a sinner – in a word, evil. Not totally evil, of course, but every human being – including you, me, Bush, Kerry, Peroutka, Badnarik and everyone else – has got a problem with evil. It's only the degree that is different from person to person.
If Bush is truly "the lesser of two evils" – which, put another way, means he is the greater good – then it's indefensible to vote for anyone else than Bush, since that would unquestionably help Kerry – the greater evil.
Let me restate this: If the object of your vote is to avoid supporting evil – and yet by your vote you end of electing the worst possible choice as president when you had it easily within your power to choose a better man – then you have indeed supported evil.
One of the many people who responded to my column on "Voting your conscience" informed me that by voting for Bush instead of Peroutka, I was operating from fear and not faith. We should just vote our consciences, he said (in this case, he was suggesting a vote for the Constitution Party candidate), and leave the outcome to God.
This is a mis-applied principle. Yes, we're meant to live righteously and not be overly concerned with the result. That means we're meant to speak the truth even if it makes us unpopular. We're meant to do the right thing, even if we lose a seeming advantage, even if it hurts, even if we lose our job. This is living from faith and leaving the outcome to God.
But when we have a clear choice between a better option and a worse option, and millions of lives will be affected by our choice, God doesn't require that we do the impossible and make a third option win out. Getting Peroutka or Badnarik elected president is impossible.
What God does hold us responsible for is to do the right thing, to act with wisdom. If America can have a safer nation with a more decent president – or be more endangered with an unprincipled, ambitious sociopath as president – and if we, you and I, are the ones who choose that president tomorrow, then we have a responsibility to choose the better man.
Not to do so will be a tragedy we will remember for the rest of our lives.
This is not an ordinary election. We are at war. That's not a metaphor, as Kerry's campaign says, but rather a real war. Millions of lives are at stake. America's security is at stake. The Supreme Court, America's sovereignty as an independent nation, the lives of the unborn, the sanctity of marriage, freedom of the press – all are at stake in this election.
As we reported in our special "REVOLT ON THE RIGHT" edition of Whistleblower magazine, there have been many times in American history when a robust third-party bid for the presidency has had a powerful and meaningful effect on the course of the nation. But tomorrow is not one of those times. Tomorrow is a time for good people to come together to stop a major evil from descending on this country.
In the last few days, Patrick Buchanan, who ran against Bush four years ago on a third-party ticket, urged Americans to vote this time for Bush. Why?
Likewise, WND's founder and CEO Joseph Farah – who did not support Bush in 2000, who has said for years he would be unable to support Bush in 2004, and who has been very favorable toward third parties – recently changed his mind and endorsed Bush over Kerry. Why?
Even Dr. John Hospers, America's first Libertarian Party presidential candidate, has urged Libertarians not to vote for their own party's candidate, but rather to vote for Bush. Why?
I'll tell you why. Because they realize what is truly at stake in this election. Do you?
Sincerely,
David Kupelian
Unless my vote cancels yours.
See how it works?
Now imagine what could've happened if Bush had convinced me that he was the best man for the job.
You might've been more convincing had you used more exclamation points.
Four isn't enough to convince me that Bush is the right man for the job.
"You just can't admit the truth and would rather blame third-party boogeymen for the incompetence of your own party."
Actually, the parties (Rep and Dem) incompetence have made the 3rd party candidate in the last three presedential elections important. A strong 3rd party in the future will have both the dems and republicans kissing some serious butt.
No. A vote for a third-party candidate that has no chance of winning does not CANCEL votes in the least. If you voted for Kerry, THAT would cancel my vote.
All you're doing with your wasted vote is increasing the likelihood that this country moves even further away from your political beliefs than it already is.
Let me amend that.
It won't even have to be the third party, just a strong third party candidate.
Sorta like Ross Perot was.
VOTE BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Joe, you have a good point. Perot was NOT a third party candidate in the traditional sense of the word. He tried to form a party around his candidacy after the fact but it has proven a miserable failure. Without the ascendancy of a similar fluke of a candidate, they're never going to hit Perot levels.
Of course it does. That's how GHW Bush got unelected in 1992. How many votes for GHW Bush counted in 1992 after he lost the election? Not a single one.
All you're doing with your wasted vote is increasing the likelihood that this country moves even further away from your political beliefs than it already is.
No, voting on principles is never a waste. Sometimes, people are even willing to die for their principles. I know this is a foreign concept to a party hack like yourself, but the truth is that Americans do all kinds of things even when there's no chance of winning.
Has electing candidates from your party moved the country closer to your political beliefs or further away? Be honest.
"Without the ascendancy of a similar fluke of a candidate, they're never going to hit Perot levels."
The thing about politics is you just never know. That "fluke" candidate could be waiting in 2008.
That's right. Some voted for Joe Schmuck, and HW lost.
The way both the major partys are going, that fluke of a candidate could come into play fairly easy in 2008.
Oh please, spare me the melodrama. If people were willing to die for the belief that if they just jumped far enough off a tall building, they could actually fly, I would not hold them in any particular esteem for the passion of their convictions.
Or, to use a more relevant analogy, if the American revolutionaries did not have guns, they wouldn't have fought. You are choosing a battle plan that is fatally flawed, so your claim that you're fighting on principle is worthless.
Has electing candidates from your party moved the country closer to your political beliefs or further away? Be honest.
Paradoxically, it did during the CLINTON era! So yes, at times it most certainly has, and I believe it will again---particularly as the Senate becomes more minority-party-proof. I am not looking for instant gratification here, this is a longer struggle. (And to be fair to you I know you appreciate that as well.)
In my opinion you should be very concerned about the effect the next four years is going to have on the Supreme Court. A Kerry presidency will do incredible further damage to that institution and prevent it from being saved for decades.
Ol'Dan Tucker said: "No, voting on principles is never a waste. Sometimes, people are even willing to die for their principles. I know this is a foreign concept to a party hack like yourself, but the truth is that Americans do all kinds of things even when there's no chance of winning."
Winning? What about winning for the unborn?
Aren't they worth it?
I think winning for them is critically important.
I see no "principles" in failing to do good when you have freedom to. Bush is the ONLY candidate who can help the unborn. Peroutka hasn't a chance.
If you don't think your opinion is worth a vote, it's not worth discussing it.
Ol' Dan---you may have the last word (and I promise I will read it). I love my debates hot and fast but now I gotta cool off and get back to work. Take care
That's a great picture ;)
I had a long long email in my inbox urging me to vote the constitution party this year. Their reasoning was since I was in a red state, I was wasting my vote and a vote for the constitution party would send a message to Washington. Needless to say, I voted for GWB.
Quoth Capitalism2003:
-----
That's a great picture ;)
-----
Glad you liked it -- it's a couple of our campaign volunteers and their children. Snapped it yesterday here at the campaign HQ in Austin.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
How can this be possible? All I ever hear from anyone on FR is that the LP is irrelevant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.