Kean wins N.J. race; Riley leads in Ala.

AP on Yahoo ^ | 6/6/06 | Robert Tanner - ap

[Antoninus]

Now maybe this time NJ conservatives could take the hint, realise they can't get one of their own to the general election, and actually back the republican instead of hanging him out to dry.

Sorry, I don't vote for liberals. See tagline.

I held my nose and voted for Forrester last two times. Fat load of good it did me.

In this case, Kean is wrong on just about every issue.

Thanks, but no thanks. If he's going to win, let him win with liberal votes. I'm writing in John Ginty.

[Antoninus]

In a Democrat controlled Senate Harry Reid will be majority leader, Chuck Schumer will be chairman of the Judiciary Committee ... want me to go on?

And Tom Kean Jr. will be member 15 of the Gang of 14.

Sorry, fear does nothing to inspire me to vote for a candidate.

[Antoninus]

This may sound completely childish, but I can sum this up in five words....Schundler '01. Payback's a bitch.

Amen to that. I haven't forgotten--and won't forget--what the liberal Republicans did to Bret Schundler in '01. Talk about "hung out to dry". They came out for McGreevey!

I'm at least prepared to be a bigger man than they were during that race--I won't actively and publicly support the Democrat.

[Antoninus]

Here, I'll draw you a picture:

Thanks for the picture. Here's what I consider "shooting yourself in the foot": Allowing liberal elitists to take over your party lock-stock-and-barrel.

Thanks, but no thanks.

[Wolfstar]

Thanks, but no thanks. If he's going to win, let him win with liberal votes. I'm writing in John Ginty.

Did you vote in the primary? If you did, I presume you voted for Ginty, who lost. But you don't accept the results of the primary, so you're going to write in his name anyway next November. In other words, you don't accept elections unless they go you're way. Whether or not you realize it, that means you don't accept our Constitutional system.

I can understand your dismay at having Kean be the Republican candidate. If he's anything like his father, I would have a hard time voting for him, too. But in a liberal state like New Jersey (where I was born and raised), the Republican is still better than the Democrat under all but the most dire circumstances.

Life is not about easy perfect choices. It's about making the most you can out of the hand you're dealt. If you absolutely cannot vote for Kean, you would honor the Constitution more if you voted for the nominee of a minority party rather than stubbornly write in the name of a candidate who lost his party's primary.

[Antoninus]

Did you vote in the primary? If you did, I presume you voted for Ginty, who lost. But you don't accept the results of the primary, so you're going to write in his name anyway next November. In other words, you don't accept elections unless they go you're way. Whether or not you realize it, that means you don't accept our Constitutional system.

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

I accept the results of the election. There is no law that says I must vote for one of the following two liberals/socialists in the general election or that I can't write in the candidate of my choice. The two-party system is found nowhere in our Constitution.

I won't vote for a liberal Republican. I'm done voting for liberals just because they have an "R" after their name. If that causes certain liberal Republicans to lose, that's too darn bad.

[Wolfstar]

I accept the results of the election. There is no law that says I must vote for one of the following two liberals/socialists in the general election or that I can't write in the candidate of my choice. The two-party system is found nowhere in our Constitution.

Actually, you don't accept the results of the primary election. You demonstrate that by insisting on voting for the loser of the primary.

True, there is no law that say you must vote, let alone vote only for candidates of one of the two majority parties.

It's also true that political parties are not found in the Constitution (although they began with Washington, Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and others in our first elections). Our method of electing representatives is in the Constitution, however. By refusing to accept the results of an election you are dishonoring the Constitution.

You have several choices open to you other than writing in the primary loser's name in November. Voting for the person you deem the most conservative of the minority party candidates actually would be more effective than writing in the name of the primary election loser.

I'm not telling you what choice to make, but am pointing out that you do have choices other than writing in a loser's name, and other than the Dem or Rep if you don't like them.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Who are you paying back?

You think the moderate republicans really mind having Menendez?

[Antoninus]

Actually, you don't accept the results of the primary election. You demonstrate that by insisting on voting for the loser of the primary.

Please don't tell me what I do or don't accept. I'll speak for myself, thank you.

True, there is no law that say you must vote, let alone vote only for candidates of one of the two majority parties. It's also true that political parties are not found in the Constitution (although they began with Washington, Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and others in our first elections).

No kidding? Who are the Whigs running this time around? Do the Federalists have a candidate?

You have several choices open to you other than writing in the primary loser's name in November. Voting for the person you deem the most conservative of the minority party candidates actually would be more effective than writing in the name of the primary election loser.

Thanks for the advice. I'm not interested in voting 3rd party. I'm registering a protest vote. That said, if a 3rd party candidate emerged who supported my key positions, I'd give him a serious look in this race.

I'm not telling you what choice to make, but am pointing out that you do have choices other than writing in a loser's name, and other than the Dem or Rep if you don't like them.

No, you're just telling me that by writing in "John Ginty", I am an unAmerican dirtbag who rejects the Constitution. Great way to garner votes for whatever fringe party you happen to represent.

[Calpernia]

>>>>In other words, you don't accept elections unless they go you're way. Whether or not you realize it, that means you don't accept our Constitutional system.

Sounds like you have missed all those articles about voter fraud.

[Brandon]

And Tom Kean Jr. will be member 15 of the Gang of 14.

And that would be bad ... why? Ever since that deal was brokered, Bush has got his nominees to the floor to a vote, and thence to the federal bench. We've confirmed not one but two conservative Supreme Court justices, when I would have bet big money against one being confirmed 18 months ago. Sure, some conservatives were aching for the "nuclear option", but which would you really rather have -- judges confirmed, sitting on the bench and rendering decisions, or a food fight?