It irks me that the two-party system is so deeply ingrained that people will throw away their vote anyway by not voting rather than by registering a protest vote for a third-party candidate.
Come on, folks, let’s stand for something, rather than sit for it!

Mr. Jose is absolutely right. Some names have been bantered about as possible write-ins as Judge Moore and Tom Tancredo. Or, does Mr. Jose infer that we should begin now the formation of a new party?

Whichever road we choose, I applaud Mr. Jose. My only question is…pitchfork or pen?

In general, Mr. Jose is correct that staying home is not an option. But the third parties need to get their messages to those thinking of staying home so they can make a reasoned decision. It seems the Internet is a limited but substantial way of doing that.

Also, for those thinking of voting third party instead of for Kerry if Kerry is going to win or lose by a margin greater than the polls’ margins of error, be careful of polls, which never predicted the Republican takeover of the Congress in the 1990’s. I suggest voting for Kerry unless the gap in the respected poll showing the least gap between the candidates is 4 times greater than the margin of error. For example: if the poll says 47 Kerry and 53 Bush and the margin of error is 3, then vote for Kerry because Kerry is not losing by a margin greater than 44 to 56. It would be vice versa if Bush were losing 44 to 56. I am not a mathematician, so I don’t know how to factor in the undecided vote.

Why talk about starting a new party when the Constitution Party exists and has steadily built itself up from appearing on the ballot in less than half of the states in 1992 to 41 states in 2000 (plus approved write-in status in 6 other states that regulate write-ins)? Why not work for ballot access in the remaining 9 states and strengthen an existing party?

Dr. James Dobson admitted on his radio show early in 2001 that he had voted for Howard Phillips in 2000. It is time for all conservatives to vote in accordance with their consciences, and then the GOP will have no choice but to see that it must provide candidates who can be voted for in good conscience.

It strikes me that this Frisco homosexual “marriage” spree is kind of a liberal-elite version of the firing on Fort Sumter - an unrecoverable demonstration of an intent to sever any political association with the Union. And by this—to say nothing of various (wholly mendacious) court decisions over the past year—we have been shown with the greatest clarity, that from now on it’s their way, or the highway.

And the president is “troubled.”

However I would urge against voting for Kerry. More important even than getting Bush out of office is to make as large as possible a show of conservative voting strength. If some third party could draw, say, 11% of the vote, so that Bush, although winning re-election, draws but a meagre 45%, that would be vastly more helpful to the Cause than his 51-49 defeat by Kerry, universally interpreted as a clarion call for even more liberalism.

I voted for Howard Phillips in 2000 myself. I did not trust Bush from the beginning (in the primaries, I supported Alan Keyes). I do htink that the Constitution Party (which was initially called the U.S. Taxpayer’s Party) is the best bet. As I have said before, the only caveat is that their candidate might be anti-war, so people who are pro-war may want to make certain that if they support the Constitution Party, that they make it clear that it is not the invasion of Iraq that they are protesting, but Bush’s other policies.

To address P Murgos’s concerns: I think that it is far less important to get Bush defeated than it is to get the true conservatives mobilized.
I agree wholeheartedly with Shrewsbury on this. I would hasten to add to his comments, however:

“If some third party could draw, say, 11% of the vote, so that Bush, although winning re-election, draws but a meagre 45%, that would be vastly more helpful to the Cause than his 51-49 defeat by Kerry, universally interpreted as a clarion call for even more liberalism.”

This is especially true because if Bush wins even with a major defection to a third party, timid conservatives who oppose Bush but who are afraid to say so for fear of sparking disunity will begin to realize that the conservative movement can survive some disunity and embolden them to speak out against Bushian liberalism.

It seems the Bushes are betraying just about everyone in the so-called conservative base. I say, Bushes, by the way, because, if anyone saw Lou Dobbs yesterday, then they also saw footage of Laura Bush. In it, Mrs. Bush was asked about illegal immigration and responded that it was “a human rights issue.” Hmmm. Like Hillary Clinton, Laura Bush received her “social conscience” while teaching Methodist Sunday School. I’m beginning to think all Methodist Sunday Schools should be closed down.

That’s just appalling that Mrs. Bush would say that. It turns out that it’s a good thing she normally says nothing about political issues; she’s even worse than her husband.

Perhaps we should refer to them as Methodist Madrassas instead of Sunday School. Seriously, does anyone here know if the Bushes are attending the notorious Foundry Methodist Church in DC? This particular church and its bishop have a long-standing leftist reputation. Among other things, they invited in the infamous John Shelby Spong and presented what could only be described as an anti-Christmas pageant (denying the miracle while simultaneously preaching the social gospel).

I believe Bush must be pushed out of office because he will be RELENTLESS with his amnesty fetish. It should be obvious to all by now that Karl Rove is not driving this immigration madness; it’s GWB’s pet cause. Whatever one thinks of Rove; and I don’t have a very high opinion of him, he is an able professional who wants to win, and this Bush-style immigration amnesty is not a winner. So we are faced with an American President who wants to do 3 things: 1. Amnesty 12 to 20 million illegals, which with family reunification will bring in another 25 million people over time. 2. open up the U.S. job market to everyone, which means all 6 billion people in the world could apply for jobs here. 3. start sending social security payments with as little as 18 months work in the U.S.to Mexicans; yes always and forever with this guy, it’s Mexicans. This is so radical, so insane; that for an American President to say these things at a State of the Union address just boggles the mind. The man is unfit for the office. There are far worse things in the world than 4 years of President John Kerry. Who on this forum doubts that GWB will not get some kind of massive amnesty if he is re-elected ? I’m not willing to take that chance. If the Republicans keep the House, and they should with the Texas redistricting; they may learn a real lesson with GWB’s defeat.

The displeasure of Traditionalists, nationalists, economic conservatives, social conservatives. the activist base, and even neoconservatives is not unexpected. As the article indicated, 6 million conservatives staid at home in 2000. (Had they voted, Bush would have been easily elected and we would not have lost 2 to 3 of the Senate races).
The nausea I felt at the 2000 convention had nothing to do with my nosebleed seat.

Bush campaigned and has governed as a compromising moderate with some conservative beliefs. We were foolish enough to let him get the nomination in 2000. We cannot afford to do the same in 2008.

However, today we face ‘04. As I told my friend Robert Locke, it would be a disaster for more conservatives to stay at home in November. Not only would the liberals pick up the presidency, but we would lose Congress. Moreover, I see no reason to believe that the party establishment would have learned a thing. I believe that they would respond to a shrinking conservative base by tacking left. (Several Republican governors, who won in 1994, did so after 1998). The result would be for conservatives to be disenfranchised.

There are only three logical things for conservatives to do
1) Vote en mass for a third party in all states, throwing the Presidential election, but keeping Congress.
2) Grudgingly to vote for GW Bush, while working to retake teh party
3) Work to retake the party, while casting symbolic protest votes.
Because of the electoral system and regional politics, certain states will not be contested. Conservatives in the Northeast (except for New Hampshire) and the West Coast could vote for a Third Party without damaging President Bush’s re-election campaign. They would be voicing displeasure, without shooting themselves in the foot. At the same time, they can also work to take over the local parties to keep out the Bushite liberalism.

Personally, I think that the third option is the most logical. However, it takes political maturity and patience. I am not sure that we can expect 3% of the electorate to follow this.

Ron
PS. In 2000, I exchanged votes with a Floridian. I voted for Pat and he voted for Bush.

RonL’s post raises an important issue that is too often ignored or downplayed in a Presidential election year: The crucial need to mitigate a possible Kerry presidency by voting to retain Republican control of Congress. This simply cannot be accomplished by staying home. Voting for a third party presidential candidate while splitting the ticket to keep Republicans (at least those who aren’t hopelessly liberal) in the House and Senate is perhaps the best method of accomplishing this goal.

This ties into another question about the Republican party itself. Bush is by no means the only Republican who routinely betrays conservatives. I view him as the leader of an entire wing of such Republicans, often called RINOs or Country Club Republicans. Together with their neocon allies, this wing basically controls the party. Is it even seriously possible to wrest control of the party from these people? As I understand it, Bush and his cronies basically purged the Texas Republicans of conservatives during his tenure as governor. It is entirely possible that conservatives have already been effectively disenfranchised - especially in liberal states.

If this is really the case, I see no alternative but to abandon the Republicans and concentrate upon building the Constitution Party on the state and local levels with the goal of electing a sufficient number of CP conservatives to Congress to force the other two parties into coalitions on individual issues or into a gridlock situation, which can actually be beneficial in some respects. This is especially true in liberal states like New York, where the only Republicans around are pathetic specimens like Pataki and Bloomberg.

In Texas this week 6 Republicans running for the U.S. Congress said they would not back GWB’s amnesty plan, so the purging of Texas conservatives has not quite been accomplished. By getting Bush out of office now I hope for gridlock. I think it is very possible for conservatives to take back the Republican Party, though it will take some pain, and a step back. I say this BTW as an active Republican Party member in my State, and I’m not alone in my Party thinking this way.

I agree with Mr. Jose that it is very important to get conservatives mobilized. This important effort need not preclude a vote for Kerry.

That is, if conservatives swell the ranks of the Constitution Party members to 11% of the electorate before the election, but the polls still show a close race between Bush and Kerry, the Constitution Party members will profit from a vote for Kerry. How? First, Bush’s loss will wrest control of a hugely powerful American political party from a liberal Mexican. Second, the pre-election Constitution Party membership and the post-election votes (e.g., assume only 5% Constitution Party) will stand as arguable evidence that 6% of the Constitution Party membership was decisive. Independent exit polling hired by the Constitution Party possibly would add evidence: “Are you a member of the Constitution Party, and whom did you vote for?” Third, the Republicans will be very interested in regaining power by drawing from its heretofore disrespected base, conservatives.

There still would be an opportunity for the Constitution Party and the Republican Party to openly ally. With an alliance rather than a takeover, the mid-level Republican bigwigs would not stand to lose their jobs or the possibility of a government job after the next election. Those jobs are important to many of those people (not that it makes them bad people), which is one of their weaknesses. We have no financial or egotistical interest in the election. We are nonviolent sacrificers, believers. We can outbid limousine liberals. Steve Sailer’s powerful statistical arguments (at VDARE) indicate there is a sleeping giant, conservatives.

Voting for George Bush is nonsensical for conservatives, though I appreciate their ignorance. George Bush is leading a Mexican invasion, and the last thing we need are people voting out of fear of a Democratic bogeyman. Think of the brave Colonel Travis at the Alamo. We survived eight years of Mr. Wizard, Bill Clinton; we can survive four years of a lesser mortal Democrat. Mr. Auster has stated that the immigration situation could turn on a dime should a leader come forth. Having Tom Tancredo and other immigration reformers carrying Bush’s infected Mexican water for four more years removes them as potential leaders.

I am going to try to get an opinion from Dick Morris about the best strategy for traditionalists concerning the immigration issue for the coming election. He might have some insights we have overlooked, for free. I know it is a long shot.

(Welcome back Mr. Young.)

I agree with Mr. Jose that it is very important to get conservatives mobilized. This important effort need not preclude a vote for Kerry.

That is, if conservatives swell the ranks of the Constitution Party members to 11% of the electorate before the election, but the polls still show a close race between Bush and Kerry, the Constitution Party members will profit from a vote for Kerry. How? First, Bush’s loss will wrest control of a hugely powerful American political party from a liberal Mexican. Second, the pre-election Constitution Party membership and the post-election votes (e.g., assume only 5% Constitution Party) will stand as arguable evidence that 6% of the Constitution Party membership was decisive. Independent exit polling hired by the Constitution Party possibly would add evidence: “Are you a member of the Constitution Party, and whom did you vote for?” Third, the Republicans will be very interested in regaining power by drawing from its heretofore disrespected base, conservatives.

There still would be an opportunity for the Constitution Party and the Republican Party to openly ally. With an alliance rather than a takeover, the mid-level Republican bigwigs would not stand to lose their jobs or the possibility of a government job after the next election. Those jobs are important to many of those people (not that it makes them bad people), which is one of their weaknesses. We have no financial or egotistical interest in the election. We are nonviolent sacrificers, believers. We can outbid limousine liberals. Steve Sailer’s powerful statistical arguments (at VDARE) indicate there is a sleeping giant, conservatives.

Voting for George Bush is nonsensical for conservatives, though I appreciate their ignorance. George Bush is leading a Mexican invasion, and the last thing we need are people voting out of fear of a Democratic bogeyman. Think of the brave Colonel Travis at the Alamo. We survived eight years of Mr. Wizard, Bill Clinton; we can survive four years of a lesser mortal Democrat. Mr. Auster has stated that the immigration situation could turn on a dime should a leader come forth. Having Tom Tancredo and other immigration reformers carrying Bush’s infected Mexican water for four more years removes them as potential leaders.

I am going to try to get an opinion from Dick Morris about the best strategy for traditionalists concerning the immigration issue for the coming election. He might have some insights we have overlooked, for free. I know it is a long shot.

(Welcome back Mr. Young.)

Tonight the Bush administration put out a news release saying that Mexico & the U.S. were going to tighten up the border. Hahaha, sure they are; and I have a bridge to sell you:) They are going to do no such thing, but Mr. Rove must have whispered the latest polling numbers into GWB’s tin ears. Nothing will stop Bush & Fox from importing millions of poor Mexicans to the U.S.; nothing ! And we are kidding ourselves if we think Bush is going to be rational on this issue. He has had over 3 years to close the border. Even after 9\11 he left the border open ! This is too little too late, boob-bait for the bubbas, bread & circus, call it what you will. The ONLY good thing about this is the fact that they are hearing US and are afraid of the polling numbers.

I’m afraid that Mr. Hagan has “grocked” the Inner Bush. He is a True Believer.

Mr. Auster is right ! Bush is a true believer. The strange thing is we almost had real, lasting, immigration reform under the Clinton administration. Former U.S. House member Barbara Jordan presented Clinton with a real reform bill after she was hired to craft it. Of course she passed away soon after this, and the various interest groups got to Clinton; and that was the end of that. Many people at the time felt that if she had lived, and pushed this bill; it would have passed. Sort of the “Nixon goes to China theory”; that only a Democrat can pass immigration reform. Perhaps this death did more to change and shape of U.S. demographic history than we shall ever know ?

I am torn between so many of you on this oustanding thread, that I am nearly in tears. Can it be that we conservatives are FINALLY going it alone—TOGETHER (No play on words intended)??

THIS is what I’ve been hoping for since Bush (through Rove) invited his terrorist buddy, Sami al-Arian, Alamoudi and other skanks “tight” with Grover Norquist into The White House right around 9/11 and shortly afterwards; since Bush sent FBI Chief Muller out to the mosques to offer an olive branch to American Muslims; since Bush said right after 9/11 that the U.S. was “…not at war with Islam”; since Bush began immediately kow towing (sp?) to Vincente Fox, etc. etc.

As certain as I am that Bush must be and will be defeated, I am undecided as to “what road” to take myself:

-the “form a third party of our own” side, separate from any current conservative party, which seems to be in the minority here and

-joining the Constitution Party and hoping Judge Moore or some other charismatic, street fighting traditionalist conservative leader will come to the fore and lead us into the future.

Before I join any unknown party (unknown to me until recently), I must be ABSOLUTELY certain that it represents my positions on illegal immigration, illicit drugs, abortion, welfare, marriage, the war with Islam, Prop. 13, etc. Since a number of you are voting for or working actively for The CP, perhaps you can fill me in on how strong that party is on Border issues, etc. I am concerned that there might be some libertarians in the hierarchy there who believe in OPEN borders, LEGALIZED illicit drugs, etc. (I recall how the NRA a year or so ago found itself in turmoil when some of its leaders/muck-e-mucks turned out to be for gun control—leaders that the base of the organization was unable to purge).

Those of you who want to form a new party, I am with you as well. That will be more difficult of course than joining a party already duly formed (as Carl suggests in his superb Feb. 20, 8:04 pm post). Either way, the effect (a Bush resounding defeat) and a good showing (many of you quote the figure of “11%”, for whatever reason) will make it all worthwhile.

To Mr. Levin:

The Constitution Party’s platform can be read right here:

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

I don’t think that they have a policy on the War on Terrorism per se. As I recall, Howard Phillips was against conquering Iraq, but positions may vary from candidate to candidate.
btw, they are, as far as I know, the only party to have a position on monetary policy.

It should also be pointed out that if the goal is to send a shockwave through the GOP, rather than to build an alternative party, it is more important that a protest vote for a conservative be made than that all conservatives unite around a single party. As long as it is made clear that there are a sizeable number of voters who will not vote for Bush because they see him as too liberal, it is less important whether they cluster around one candidate or around two, three, or more candidates with mostly similar views.

My thanks to Mr. Jose for his sensible response to my query. I wholeheartedly agree.

I am curious, though. Are there any Libertarians in high places at The CP—or are they all conservatives? The CP is often mentioned at VFR but people I ask about it know relatively little.

There are a lot of people trying to do something Mr. Levin. So rest assured that you are not alone.

On another point, it would be a mistake for immigration reformers to let up the pressure on their legislators and the White House. It might appear that the reformers are starting to have an effect, but this is just when an even greater effort is needed. The pressure should continue until Bush is defeated; the bigger the defeat, the easier it will be to be taken seriously later. At the end of the day one will feel that instead of just complaining, one at least tried.

If the immigration reform movement or the conservative grass roots in general wants to make a stand, here’s an even more obvious way to give Karl Rove, Jorge Bush et al., a swift kick in the backside.
1) Help Matt Throckmorton defeat Chris ‘Open Borders’ Cannon in the GOP congressional primary. See matt4utah.com
2) Help recruit a real conservative to challenge & defeat the notorious Sam ‘por la Reqonquista’ Brownback in the upcoming GOP primary for the senate (Kansas).
Both the above are poster children for the Karl Rove Hispander wing of the GOP. Others up for re-election this year are Senators Arlen Specter & Charles Grassley both frequent mouth pieces for the cheap labor & “nation of immigrants” lobby. If groups like FAIR & Numbers USA were to coalesce their efforts on Cannon & Brownback, it would be a rare occasion to test the strength of the conservative movement versus the liberal & Rockefellar Republican elites.

“Are there any Libertarians in high places at The CP—or are they all conservatives?” I cannot imagine that the brand of conservatism at the Constitution Party is palatable to libertarians. I have been following it for years, since their days as the U.S. Taxpayers Party, and they have always ben conservative, not libertarian.

I do not believe that religious organizations should become part of the political process.On social issues affecting conscience and choice, each so-called believer should use the available resources already in play; writing or expressing in whatever form their own dissatisfaction or grievanses. It is still the admonition of scripture that they, of the fundamentalist faction, must pray for those in authority. Personal attacks on individuals whose voting records may not be in accord to one’s beliefs, is unchristian in spirit and truth. There is a greater power to employ and that is the voting booth. And, of course, the effectual and fervent prayer of the righteous. We are a nation of representatives; the ‘Falwells’s and the Robertson’s of our time belong in the pulpit and not the halls of Congress!

The disaffection with Bush spreads throughout the Republican Party, as detailed in the latest column from Bob Novak. See http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20040304.shtml

I have good news, the Constitution Party candidate for President, Michael Peroutka,

http://www.peroutka2004.com

has stated that he believes that illegals should be deported.

http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?action=eventview&event_id=10

Last paragraph:

“As President, one of my top priorities would be to really secure our borders and deport all individuals who are here illegally.”

And Mr. Bush wants to make things still easier on our southern border:

“The Bush administration plans to pull the plug on a new border-security program requiring millions of visa-carrying Mexican nationals to be fingerprinted and photographed before being allowed to enter the United States…”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040304-114548-8695r.htm