Since you evidently don't understand voter habits very well, we'll just have to leave that issue aside for now.
I preface the following scenario by saying the electability of any third party -- liberal or conservative -- to the Presidency at this time is a metaphysical impossibility. You don't appear to realize yet that a CP President needs political allies. He can't sit in the office and govern by Conservative diktat and idealism. Were he to be elected, he would need to have allies to get anything done. Perhaps you think those allies will be......Republicans? Don't be so sure.
Tell me why Republicans elected to office would support a turn-coat?
Neither you nor I believe a CP candidate can win anyway, so as you throw away your vote this Novemeber, I hope you're happy with the functional aid and comfort you personally lent to the enemy. When GWB wins, your presense at the celebration with the better reasoned and more strategically thinking conservatives will certainly not be missed.
If you'd have read more carefully before posting you'd have noticed that the Presidency is the subject of our discussion. The fact that you maintain the mistaken notion that voting CP for president somehow affects congressional races, doesn't mean I do.
Sorry, while you're just plain wrong on so many levels already, we'll just focus on one fundamental point that continues to escape you here. The discussion is not only about the Presidency and you're a fool if you think that somehow all you need is the Presidency to move the country to a more conservative political philosophy and posture. Even Reagan needed at least one helpful chamber in the Congress to make his plans into legislation and then passed into law. Unlike any of the no-name CP midgets that you'd suggest to replace Bush, Reagan had real political stature.
"Conservatives" of your ilk abandoned the Reagan team in the midterm elections of 1986, and it appears you're prepared to do it again.
You must think that a CP president can rule like a king vested with divine rights or something similar and impose conservatism with a wave of his hand. That's just a whole lotta CP wishful thinking, not Constitutional reality, despite the name they choose to call themselves.
Totally wrong. Nowhere did I say that.
Yes you did:
"What's even more probable, given current trends, is that whether a Republican or a Democrat is in the WH, federal spending will continue to rise,...." There's always a risk with everything. It's just that there's a much greater risk that, left to their own devices, the Republicans will do what I described, with the outcomes that I described.
= Republicans are the greater risk and therefore by extension a greater threat than the Democrats. Will you now enter a contorted intellectual flip and try to say at the same time that you trust Republicans more than Democrats? You can't philosophically have it both ways and remain intellectually or philosophically consistent.
But that's the inherent problem with the CP option: it is strategically speaking both intellectually and philosophically at odds with the long term promotion of conservative priniciples of which they claim to be the purest of champions.
If, as you say is true, the threat of voting CP presents a risk to a Republican politician, he'd be foolish not to take it into account. How he actually does respond is of course impossible to predict for certain, and known only to him.
Sure, he'll take it into account on one level, but if you support him actively chances are stronger that he'll pay closer attention to what you have to say. And I don't just mean with words. Plenty of armchair whining conservatives out there who never worked in a campaign or ponied up some $, but they are the first to bitch. I'll assume that you are reasonably intellegent and that this doesn't require a whole lot of further explanation. Failure to support the philosophical team to which you ascribe is passive support for your philosophical opponent, and support just the same from which your opponent derives a real benefit.
And how exactly has he done this, if as you say he lacks the constitutional power? You're basically trying to argue that he can take the credit for doing something, but not the blame for doing the exact same thing.
Bush has neutralized the issues of value to the opposition. You are again showing that you don't understand the process. Constitutional power granted to the President doesn't have anything to do with the skill that a person who holds that office has to be able to nutralize his opponents issues. Two totally different things.
Congressional politics is very different from presidential politics. In any case, my point remains that it's impossible to say for certain when a presidential election is going to be hair-thin close,
"Your point" remains? From your last post: "The chances of another election as close as 2000 are infinitesimal...."
How many more times will you contradict yourself on this thread? The siren's song of CP-think leaves its defenders, adherents, and dazed acolytes phiosophically confused. And that in itself is a victory for the Dems. Your posting is an example of the inherent danger of what are the conservative neutralizing results of immersion of ones-self in CP-think.
Not at all. But what's clear is that the media are liberal, and what's equally clear is that they know very much how to keep liberalism in charge, even when ostensible liberals aren't in charge. They're not stupid, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to maintain their power for so long. They know what they're doing. They weren't making a mistake by supporting Nader.
Nader's candidacy subverted the strength of the Democratic vote, and some in the media were too stupid to realize that. These are the kind of boobs in the media industry who supported Eugene NcCarthy in '68, Shirley Chisholm in '72, and Kennedy in '80. They turn to Nader's Green because Gus Hall's Commies are no longer on the ballot. These idiots are of no help to the socialist vision of Dems any more than the CP are of any help to the cause of conservatism. Don't you get it yet?
While they may be conniving, you'll notice that liberals aren't at all that smart, nor skillful in the execution of what one might term "plots." Bill Clinton is the actually the Republicans secret weapon and he will single handedly do more to damage his party than any other Republican or Karl Rove could even think of conspiring to do.
Your statement reminds me of Christians that make Satan out to be bigger than he is to the point that they become deceived into thinking his power is greater than God's Himself, and they as Christians subsequently become ineffective in the practice of their faith.
Moving on, that was a nice job you did of selective quoting and stitching sentences together while leaving out the pertinent sentences in between. When you use those methods, you can "prove" just about anything you want. But if you'd care to quote the relevant portions of my paragraph, then we can have a rational discussion about it. Somehow, however, I suspect it would be unnecessary, since I think you already knew that what I was saying wasn't how you characterized it.
Sure, he'll take it into account on one level, but if you support him actively chances are stronger that he'll pay closer attention to what you have to say.
Either you're wrong, or Bush and the Republicans have extremely liberal supporters. I'll go with the former. Politicians do what they need to do to get elected. Those that don't, don't remain politicians for very long. It's that whole Darwin thing.
Constitutional power granted to the President doesn't have anything to do with the skill that a person who holds that office has to be able to nutralize his opponents issues.
The fact remains that you're still giving him credit for something, but not allowing him to take the blame for the exact same thing.
"Your point" remains? From your last post: "The chances of another election as close as 2000 are infinitesimal...."
When the chances of an event are infinitesimal, it's generally rather difficult to predict when it will happen. Unless you've had some success at this sort of thing?
Nader's candidacy subverted the strength of the Democratic vote, and some in the media were too stupid to realize that. These are the kind of boobs in the media industry who supported Eugene NcCarthy in '68, Shirley Chisholm in '72, and Kennedy in '80. They turn to Nader's Green because Gus Hall's Commies are no longer on the ballot.
You're still not seeing the big picture. They lose individual elections here and there, but in the process they're able to maintain "the socialist vision of the Dems" regardless of who's in power. IOW, they understand that politicians and parties are simply means to an end, not ends in and of themselves. I think you're still not getting that. Then again, maybe you are, judging from the next quote from you I've highlighted.
Bill Clinton is the actually the Republicans secret weapon and he will single handedly do more to damage his party than any other Republican or Karl Rove could even think of conspiring to do.
Am I reading you right, now? Are you telling me that Clinton was good for conservatism? Does this mean you don't bear any grudge against all those conservative Perot voters? Well, hallelujah! That means you should have no objection at all to CP voters either, because if it gets Kerry elected, just think of what he could do for conservatism! (especially with a GOP/CP majority in the election)