Vote for Peroutka or Badnarik?

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | November 1, 2004 | David Kupelian

[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

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Then fight within the parties to change it.

Hey, it's your party causing the problems. You change it. I see them for what they are.

And, good luck. You're going to need it.

[Bella_Bru]

Unless, of course, you expect to be able to rant about Bush unchallenged; is that what you want? You want to be able to criticize him without anybody defending him?

Of course not. But how about a real defense? Instead of, "Kerry will be/wound have been worse", how about saying what Bush will do about problem XYZ?

I am voting for Bush, I have said that all along. However, I do not believe you will have much luck with the undecided if your only argument is the other guy is worse.

[GmbyMan]

I vote for whom comes closest to my point of view and has the higher character among those people who could get elected. I believe that President Bush is engaged on some level in removing Government from our lives. His move towards Social Security Private Accounts and Health Savings Accounts for Medicare and Medicaid are huge, revolutionary and (dare I say it) libertarian moves in these two programs. They are the kind of thing that John Kerry, even in his most glorious wet dream about Morgan Fairchild, would NEVER propose in a million years. The differences between these two men are stark and deep. I have no problem supporting President Bush and believe he is really the only candidate true to my tagline.

[wku man]

Note to all Kool-Aid drinking, yeller dawg, "party over principle" Pubbies...
How long now have we conservatives been warning you not to take us for granted? How long now have we been telling we won't vote for the lesser of two evils? How long have we been telling you to dance with the one who brung ya? How long have we been warning you not to abandon the party's former core principles? If you lose now, you have no one to blame but yourselves (and Karl Rove).

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[mcg1969]

Well hey, if you want to remain a completely impotent agent of political change, that's your prerogative I suppose.

[mcg1969]

Sigh. Maybe you're right, wku man. Maybe it's about time we Republicans stopped casting our pearls before swine.

[Howlin]

For what it's worth, I'm no longer interested in the undecideds. If they haven't made up their minds one way or the other by now, maybe they shouldn't vote.

[jimt]

I am sympathetic to your cries for smaller government and the like but the only way to really change a party is from within.

I recall twenty years ago when a large group of influential Libertarians defected to form the RLC within the Republican party. In twenty years they've had zero effect that I've noticed, in fact, the Republicans have gone in the opposite direction.

Seems your argument falls rather flat. Our cries for smaller government fall on extraordinarily deaf ears.

[maryz]

I could understand the protest vote if one was in hopelessly RAT-infested territory like Massachsetts.

Someone posted number for MA on another thread; he didn't give a source, but it said Kerry 55, Bush 47 (I think). I really think they should run Schilling's recorded phone call here in MA -- at least in Boston.

[Howlin]

If you lose now, you have no one to blame but yourselves (and Karl Rove).

And if we lose, then you're really out of luck. The GOP is the only party that will listen to you; how hard do you think they will listen after a defeat you gladly take part in?

[politicalwit]

"Maybe it's about time we Republicans stopped casting our pearls before swine."

I've already stopped casting those pearls. I'm no longer a Republican. I'm a CONSERVATIVE and damn proud of it.

[mysterio]

I agree with you. I have never understood why Republicans assumed our vote belonged to them if they didn't address our issues. I would vote Republican again if I truly believed that the party would cut off the blood supply to the growing cancer that is our government. But it seems to grow unabated under their rule, too. I think that Kerry is a worse choice than Bush. But that's not enough for me anymore.

[GmbyMan]

Two points.

I'd rather be in a clown suit frolicking in the woods than to be demanding respect while on my knees servicing my 'man'.

This is my point about the third party idiots. You would rather feel good about yourself than engage in the process. All that matters is that you don't get on your "knees servicing the 'man'."

Well, forgive for saying this but I think voting matters. Politics matters. Issues matter. I see a huge difference between the two parties and the two candidates for President. There are things President Bush does and would do that the idiotic right wing "third" parties support that John Kerry wouldn't even contemplate doing. This is my point.

Congratulations! You're one of the few Republicans who believe that Perot did NOT cause Bush to lose.

Yeah, that's right, voting for third party because people were {begin whiny voice} mad because George H. W. Bush broke his promise and signed a tax increase... wha... wha... wha {end whiny voice} led to eight years of Bill Clinton, you idiot. It essentially led to eight years of morale darkness. We placed a philandoring sell out who (get this) RAISED TAXES in the white house so that some people could sit in the corner and pleasure themselves!!!!! If this is what voting third party brings us it if more reason why people who do it are on the lower side of Social Darwinist scale.

[Preacher777]

I am a pastor ... have been one for 27 years. For ANYONE to be having this conversation at this hour is totally ridiculous! I cannot believe that anyone who considers themselves a conservative" Christian could possibly vote for anyone but our President! It is possible that at another time and with other circumstances I might vote for a third party. This is NOT the year! There are three overwhelming issues for Christians ... and all Americans to consider at this time:
1) The security issue
2) The moral clarity of this President!
3) The Supreme Court vacancies that will occur in the next four years!

End of argument!

[SeasideSparrow]

Bottom line:

Peroutka isn't going to win.

So who is left to speak for the unborn?

Bush.

He isn't perfect. No one is, including Peroutka. But he's done a whole lot already for the unborn and with him we have a chance of putting more prolife Supreme Court justices in place.

Kerry voted 6 times in support of partial birth abortion.

I don't see how anyone can vote for someone (Peroutka) who cannot win considering the lives of the unborn hang in the balance. At least with Bush more unborn lives will be saved. With Kerry more of them will die.

It's that simple if you care about the unborn.

[Capitalism2003]

I'll be voting Libertarian.

Bush has grown non defense domestic spending at a rate of 12.5% annually, more than 300% what we saw under divided government in the 90's.

The national debt has hit $7.5 trillion dollars and the GOP is fully embracing socialism.

The only hope for our country is to pull them back to the side of fiscal sanity, and it's not going to happen unless they are FORCED back by true conservatives.

[SeasideSparrow]

Somebody said: "I'm no longer a Republican. I'm a CONSERVATIVE and damn proud of it."

That's the problem. Some are putting their own pride ahead of improving things for the unborn.

A vote for Peroutka does nothing for the unborn. Absolutely nothing. I don't want their blood on my shoulders. I will vote for Bush. To vote any other way is to ignore their plight.

[politicalwit]

"Congratulations! You're one of the few Republicans who believe that Perot did NOT cause Bush to lose."

Perot didn't cause the loss. The republican party created the loss by backing a weak candidate. Fiscal Conservatives within the party wanted change. The Republican Party didn't listen so they voted for someone that best represented their views.

[Bella_Bru]

That's a cop-out. You know I didn't mean undecideds on Nov 1st. I meant undecideds 4 months ago, when people were still shouting "Kerry would be worse". That's not a very good argument, Howlin, you know that. So why continue it? Why get angry everytime illegal immigration, bloated government, etc., is brought up instead of saying, "yeah, we should write the president and ask for change"? Why not be angry that things are not going as well as planned instead of living in a LaLa Land where every pol with an R next to his/her name must bew elevated to a status normally reserved for deities?

[Just another Joe]

Going to a third party is going to do nothing to change the existing party.

I don't want to change the existing partys. It's too late in the game to change the existing partys.
I want to throw the ba$tard$ out by the scruff of their necks and tell them, "Don't come back until you can represent the PEOPLE!"

I know that can't be done in one election, possibly not in one decade short of a miracle.

I'm not saying that my vote doesn't go to President Bush and nowhere on this forum, or any other, will you find words to that effect from me.

President Bush is the best of a bad lot. That doesn't make him the best.
I WILL vote for a republican, hopefully a conservative, for POTUS, US senators, and State Governors. Only because a third party DOESN'T stand a chance.
And the reason the third partys don't stand a chance is because of people crying wolf and voting, not their conscience, but out of fear.

I have voted for Republicans, Democrats, third party, and write-in during my voting life.
The only two differences I see in the two major partys anymore is how fast they want to spread the federal govt and where they want to fight terrorists.
The second difference is the ONLY reason I will vote for President Bush in this election.

Next election cycle will tell how I vote then.

But don't tell people that their vote is wasted, or that's it's a vote for the opponent of your preferred candidate, if they don't vote for a particular candidate or party. It's not.