Meet the Anti-Candidates: Nobody's FOR Them!

Capitol Hill ^ | May 3, 2008 | JB Williams

[PlainOleAmerican]

The fact is - most Americans would love to pull the lever for none-of-the-above! 50% of American voters have been pulling that lever for years now, having already thrown in the towel on elective self-governance by not voting at all. The other 50%, who still vote, cast their votes against the other candidates, not for any of the clearly under qualified misfits that now run for the highest office in the land.

(snip)

In the end, a vote for Hillary is only a vote against Obama and McCain. A vote for Obama is only a vote against Clinton and McCain and a vote for McCain is only a vote against Clinton and Obama, both of whom promise a progressive rush into outright socialism upon swearing in…

Pure Marxists will cast a vote for Hillary. Marxists with a racial bent will support Obama. And all those in America who actually oppose both Marxism and racism are left with no one to vote for but McCain.

[RipSawyer]

“Lincoln doesn’t deserve to be in the category, IMO.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You’ll never walk alone.

[PlainOleAmerican]

I’d say, one Marxist, one racist Marxist and one half-hearted liberal...

[PlainOleAmerican]

And that’s why he writes...

“All three candidates suck!

Some voters think they have a license on frustration and discontent. Most of them are professional malcontents today, opposing everything and everyone, but offering no viable solutions to anything. The people, who were once the only solution, are now a part of the problem.”

EVERY vote for “none of the above” brings the outright racist Marxists one vote closer to the Oval Office. That makes the very people who should be the solution, a part of the problem.

[PlainOleAmerican]

I know that none of the three are in the least qualified.

But, one of them will be president...

You can help the least of the evils or the greatest of the evils. It's more than a cliche’ - it's reality.

[mysterio]

I support your right to do whatever you want with your vote. I have been disappointed enough by compromise candidates, however, that I am not casting a vote for any candidate that doesn’t make smaller, less intrusive government and restoration of the Bill of Rights top issues.

[Man50D]

The GOP has moved far enough to the left over the years that they and the Rats are ideologically one party. A vote for McCain is just a slower march towards socialism.

[PlainOleAmerican]

Every protest vote against the liberal McCain is a vote for the socialist alternative.

You have a right to do it. I have the right to disagree with your suicidal decision. And we both will have to live with the consequences of your decision.

[mysterio]

I don’t cast protest votes. My vote belongs to no one but me. I vote for small government advocates.

[PlainOleAmerican]

You really need to study more.

The RNC has moved left over the years to become a somewhat liberal party of say, JFK or FRD.

However, during that same time frame, the DNC moved even further left and is no more the party of JFK or FDR, both of which would be Republicans today.

So, like the rest of us, you can either vote for the liberal McCain or the socialists he’s running against.

If the socialists win, the rest of us will know how... You have chosen to be part of the problem, rather than offer any solution.

[mware]

How could any Catholic vote for a man who would not even vote for the Born Alive Act.

Legislation was presented on the federal level and in various states called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.

BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote. Even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed a mother’s right to “choose” stopped at her baby’s delivery.

The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush signed BAIPA into law in 2002.

But in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left.

I testified in 2001 and 2002 before a committee of which Obama was a member.

Obama articulately worried that legislation protecting live aborted babies might infringe on women’s rights or abortionists’ rights. Obama’s clinical discourse, his lack of mercy, shocked me. I was naive back then. Obama voted against the measure, twice. It ultimately failed.

In 2003, as chairman of the next Senate committee to which BAIPA was sent, Obama stopped it from even getting a hearing, shelving it to die much like babies were still being shelved to die in Illinois hospitals and abortion clinics.

(As chair of that same committee, Obama once abruptly ended a hearing early, right before Scott and Janet Willis, the parents of six children killed as a result of Illinois’ drivers licenses for bribes scandal, were to testify in favor of Choose Life license plate legislation. I was there for that one, too. The Willises had traveled three hours. Reporters filled the room. Obama stalled. He later killed the bill when no one was around.)

[PlainOleAmerican]

Ever elected one?

Since you are for smaller government, how do you plan on keeping open socialist who openly pursue the complete destruction of your country out of the Oval Office this fall?

[mysterio]

By not casting a vote for one.

[PlainOleAmerican]

Catholic's have been voting against their religious doctrines for decades. How do you explain any Catholic voting for any Democrat today?

They have bought into complete “separation of church and state” to the extreme degree that they place no moral judgment at all on political decisions.

[PlainOleAmerican]

As you very well know, not voting at all is the equivalent of good men doing nothing when evil comes a knocking. Voting for 1% candidates to "make a statement" which always results in the worse possible outcome in any election, is also the equivalent of good men doing nothing of any value. The only way to stop something is to vote against it. While you're busy voting against McCain, I'll be busy voting against total socialism.

[mware]

You are correct.

Many Catholics have been picking and choosing what they want to believe.

I was pleasantly surprised when Cardinal Egan called Rudy on the communion incident. Now if only the LA and DC cardinals would address the issue.

[mysterio]

I have no desire to go point by point with you against McCain. I respect him for his service, and I disagree with him on many of his policy positions. I support your right to vote for the candidate that you support.

[Man50D]

The RNC has moved left over the years to become a somewhat liberal party of say, JFK or FRD.

Every step towards socialism is one more step away from conservatism. Our founding fathers wrote the Constitution with the express intent to ensure power was disbursed away from the select few who manage the government and towards the people who are the government. Your rationalization is a failed attempt to justify the incremental usurpation of the founding fathers ideals for limited government. There is no end to the slippery slope scenario you propose.

One glaring omission in your statement is the lack of will power to make any movement back to the conservative right! It is also an admission that you, and many others like you, are so willing to incrementally appease socialism knowing full well socialists never cede their principles by moving to the right!

If the socialists win, the rest of us will know how... You have chosen to be part of the problem, rather than offer any solution.

The socialists have been winning and continue win with the very type of attitude you express with these statements! The only way to defeat them is to draw a line in the sand now, standing firm on conservative values and putting an end to the "bipartisanship, reach across the aisle" mentality that is pervasive in the Republican party. The socialists consistently stand firm on their socialist beliefs. The GOP should do the same. By doing so the socialists will then develop the opposite line thinking that it is necessary for them to move more to the right.

Failing to do so has resulted in a socialist candidate like McCain and will only yield increasingly socialistic candidates with each succeeding election.

[SoConPubbie]

The men you mentioned would get pummelled by today's political consultants and media men Not likely, as the electorate was much smarter, even if their education level was much lower.

They also had, on the whole, much more honor and morals.

[PlainOleAmerican]

How many points do you agree with Clinton or Obama on?

[PlainOleAmerican]

“Every step towards socialism is one more step away from conservatism.”

Absolutely!

Now, do you prefer ten giant leaps into socialism or a couple baby steps down the road we are already on and trying the get off?

Because this is the choice as I see it.