Would you vote for Bush in 2004 if he .....

[Power Wagon]

Although it depends on the Democrat running (though I can't imagine any Democrat actually getting nominated that I'd vote for), there's little chance I'd vote for anyone else.



I know where I want the country to go, and from what I can tell, there is no Democrat who wants to go ANYWHERE in that direction, and Bush is promoting many things I'm all for, from not taxing dividends to an agressive foreign policy, to big thinking globally.



While no candidate will ever support everything I want, I'm sure, that doesn't mean I won't vote. Nor will I choose sides based upon a single issue. The country has far too many issues of grave importance to lose them all just because you object to one.

 

[loncray]

While I'm probably pretty far from Power Wagons actual political sentiments, I agree 100% with his last paragraph - this nation is way too complicated, with many, many issues that demand our attention - far too many to let just one issue decide all our voting. And I firmly believe that failure to vote ought to lose you your right to complain about whoever's elected.

 

[FATCAT]

Look at the post by willyslover about the Gun Ban and how gunowners around the country will abandon Bush if he is handed a bill to extend the "Assault Weapons" Ban and signs it.



If he backstabs us on this one (like he did on CFR), what makes you think he will continue to support the other critical issues he says he will support?



Already he is wavering on his tax cut plan and dividends interest elimination (a tiny tax cut at that).



I am getting a bad feeling about the Repubs these days. Frist has turned out to be a worthless bag of jelly and has let Dashole roll him at every turn. There are a bunch of RINOs in the Senate that are stabbing Bush in the back and Frist just stands there like a useless dope.



A line in the sand needs to be drawn on the Repubs ... and the AWB is the perfect test of their loyalty to liberty, freedom, and belief in our Constitution. Otherwise what makes you believe that he will stand up for the other issues you folks seem to believe he will support.

 

[The patriot]

Counting on someones vote because you know you can **** them and they cant do anything about it is a crappy way to treat your consitiuency, and skating on thin ice as far as getting repeat voters.

A vote for the lesser of two evils is still never the less a vote for evil.

I've almost come to expect this from Nj politicians, but not from national level positions.

Eric

 

[smartineau]

patriot,



I like it!!!



"a vote for the lesser of two evils is still never the less a vote for evil. "



Like I said earlier I only voted for bush because of the 2nd amendment. He can easily lose my vote just like daddy Bush did.



As I recall, I'm not positive. But I think that daddy Bush banned more guns with a signature of a pen than what Clinton did in 8-years. This is in regards to the banning of the importation of assault weapons.



If Bush lets the AWB sunset, will he gain any votes from democrats? I think not, they are never going to vote for him anyway, for a variety of issues. As I see it banning the guns permanently only will cost him some votes, he won't gain any.



steve

 

[Mike Ellis]

Gentlemen,



You can deride guys like me for our "principled" votes all you want to, but you have to ask yourself the question sooner or later: Just how much compromise are you willing to stand before you decide to send your representatives a message?



What would Candidate X have to do before you would fail to vote for him? Does he get your vote if he only screws you 25% of the time? 50%? 75%?



As far as being myopic, we enjoy a lot of prosperity and freedom in the United States thanks to those shortsighted Founding Fathers who were willing to stand up for their principles in the face of the Crown and the world's mightiest military. They weren't risking a Democrat taking office ... they were risking their lives, their fortunes, and their honor. Most Americans apparently aren't even willing to risk a vote to demand accountability from their representatives. Too bad the Founding Fathers weren't more farsighted and enlightened like we are today.



Keep compromising, gentlemen. Continue to accept the small nicks and cuts to your freedoms. Future generations who will have NONE of those freedoms will thank you for your sacrifice.



Meanwhile, FATCAT and I will be throwing our votes away. Go ahead and call us myopic, at least we TRY to make a stand and demand accountability for the keystone of our freedoms - the 2nd Amendment. You know where we stand. Do you know where YOU stand? Or are you content to just get pushed along from place to place, convincing yourself at each step of the way that you wanted to be there all along?



I'm interested to hear what would make you guys draw the line Vote / No Vote for a candidate, if there is nothing that would make you draw a line I'm interested to hear that too.

 

[Champane Flight]

Don't think

I don't think there is one person who has ever run for office that had all my interests at heart, or could satisfy all of anyones prerequisites for Presidency. When I say the lesser of evils, I mean just that. I would hope someday that we as a people could see farther than party lines and vote for the best man/woman for the job, whether we see it as throwing our vote away or not. If we all did this, I am sure we could reshape American politics and shake up the status quo! Too many people who we have elected to office to serve, are being served! Too many professional politicians, not enough grass root, common man people running for office. It has gotten to be only the rich can run, maybe we should level the playing field somehow?

 

[Mike Ellis]

CF,



You say "the lesser of two evils", but you must have some line that you make a stand on which President Bush has crossed - because you have given him a good lashing in a lot of threads. What exactly is that line, for you? Would you vote for a Democrat if they crossed it? If so, WHY?

 

[merryman]

I am feeling kinda weird:>)

I find I am agreeing with CF :>)

I do not deride or ridicule the "single issue" arguments seen here, I just do not believe the realities are nearly that simple.

It only makes sense to me to say you are going to "draw a line" and take a stand on an issue if it has some chance, however small of yelding a benefit either now or in the future.



Here I strongly believe that the position you advocate will surely both now and in the long run further damage the gun owning rights in the country.



To think that this is an issue where you can succeed in anyway by helping to elect someone less supportive of gun owners because of unhappiness with Bush is not realistic thinking. IF the next real oponent is less favorable to us than Bush, not voting for Bush WILL help that opponent. Ground lost here is not likely to be made up in the future. As was pointed out, we gun owners, although great in numbers are faced with huge city populations that slavishly vote for the gun banners.

Government at all levels can never be anything better than accepting the lesser of evils. We accept government and any regulation ONLY because we cannot, as a nation without it--------------------It is allways simply the lesser of evils.

Even if you get the "perfect" candidate elected, he/she, even the president of the US, is so bound and circumvented by the rest of government and all its bureaucracies, that their ability to actually influence and lead is very restricted; only in military situations such as we have just witnessed is the President able to take real decisive action. In all areas he/she must decide in the overall picture, where do they want to "spend" their ability to influence-----that influence is limited, both as to the area where it can prevail and the number of times it can be effective.

Politics is allways "the art of the possible"



Don't bother with hoping for really "good" government; it ain't going to happen. Long ago some wise fellow suggested that we never watch sausage or laws being made; he was right.



I'd love to be all wet (some of you may want to tell me I am----heck people are allways telling me where to go ;>).



Vaughn

 

[Udaloy]

Keyester

I still think Alan Keyes is as close to perfect as a candidate can get for us conservatives. I wanted to vote for him real bad but at the time, it was too close with the liberal Republican from Arizona. Keyes doesn't like the tax scheme as it sits, he's pro gun, pro life, pro liberty and pro small government. He's a man of his word and he's getting my vote if he runs again. Keyes 2004!!

 

[RustyJC]

OK, guys, let me illustrate the problem I have with "single issue" voting. Let's say there are three candidates in a race, and only one of them is absolutely pro-2nd Amendment. For the sake of argument, let's also say that the pro-2nd Amendment candidate is pro-abortion, pro-tax and spend, pro-affirmative action quotas, etc. From my perspective, his stands on these other issues disqualify him from my consideration, despite his stand on ownership of firearms.



For further sake of argument, let's say that in another election the pro-2nd Amendment candidate (candidate A) and I were in 100% philosophical agreement on all matters, but the polls had him at 10% of the likely voters - absolute tops!! Now, candidate B is running at 46% in the polls, and I'm in 90% agreement with his positions. Candidate C is at 44% in the polls, and I'm in 0% agreement with his positions. An idealist would vote with his heart for candidate A - I can understand and respect that. As a pragmatist, however, I'll cast my vote with my head for candidate B because the reality of the situation is that voting for candidate A only helps candidate C, and my objective is to get the candidate who most closely supports my views into office.



YMMV -



Rusty

 

[Udaloy]

Rusty,



You just argued one of the dumbest points ever brought into the debate on single issue or any issue voting. If you find a candidate that's pro-gun but is also pro-abortion, pro-tax and spend, pro-affirmative action quotas, pro-gay and whatever else, I'll kiss your a$$. How can you claim to be a pragmatist and come up with a "what if" like that?



If you study the cause and effect of political events, you will see that in order to be pro-abortion and all the rest, you'd be a democrat. There isn't one democrat on the national level that will support any pro-gun legislation. Yes, there might be a few local representatives that do but they are not running for president like this thread asked. Look at Dennis Kucinich from Cleveland. In his whole career, he's always been pro-life. Now that he's running for president as a dem. , he's changed his tune.



The whole idea of voting is to cast it in favor of the candidate you like, regardless of how he's doing in the polls. If all you're doing is trying to vote for the winner, then you are the problem.



How can anyone vote for someone who isn't their ideal candidate?





Oh and for the people that didn't know what the One Thing was for Mr. Keyes, it's his skin color, not about the president being the president of Christianity as well (which I don't think is correct either).

 

[me4osu]

A moral dilemma

I figured this may apply in this thread. Just to keep things in perspective.



It is time to elect a world leader, and your vote counts. Here are the facts about the three leading candidates:



Candidate A

Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.



Candidate B

He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whisky every evening.



Candidate C

He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and hasn't had any extramarital affairs.







Which of these candidates would be your choice?







Decide first, no peeking, then scroll down for the answer.







































Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt



Candidate B is Winston Churchill



Candidate C is Adolf Hitler

 

[loncray]

Alan Keyes

I don't think Alan Keyes will ever be electable as President. Part of it is skin color, but more is that he doesn't have the name recognition to overcome those who object to his skin color. Colin Powell is probably the only black man right now who could get elected - his name is all over the place and a lot of people like him. The only other possible black candidates (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Carol Mosely-Braun) have name recognition, but are too extremist to get elected.

 

[Udaloy]

One more thing Rusty,

What you are discussing is relativity. Candidate B is relatively a good candidate compared to the liberal. But if your principles point you to candidate A, then you should vote for him. If everyone voted with their ideals, then you would see candidates changing their tune to get your vote. Either that or they'd be switching parties. Either way, it's all good.



Voting for the ok candidate and not your first choice slowly erodes our voice. Every year the candidates get closer and closer in opinion in order to get the most votes. Since you are willing to vote for him instead of standing up and voting your conscience, he gets away with it. What does that tell your politician?











As for Hitler not having a mistress... Wasn't that who he spent his last minutes with? I could be wrong but I thought so.

 

[loncray]

As I recall, Hitler spent his last few minutes with his wife - having married her in the bunker. And before that, she was his girlfriend.

 

[RustyJC]

Originally posted by Udaloy

Rusty,



You just argued one of the dumbest points ever brought into the debate on single issue or any issue voting. If you find a candidate that's pro-gun but is also pro-abortion, pro-tax and spend, pro-affirmative action quotas, pro-gay and whatever else, I'll kiss your a$$.

I may be a lot of things, my friend, but dumb isn't one of them. You've never met me, so let's keep the personal attacks out of it, OK?

If you study the cause and effect of political events, you will see that in order to be pro-abortion and all the rest, you'd be a democrat.

The "straw man" candidate was set up for illustration only - take it for that. Doesn't Rush say that "I use the absurd to illustrate the ridiculous. " By the way, would you like me to give you the names of some pro-abortion Republicans?

The whole idea of voting is to cast it in favor of the candidate you like, regardless of how he's doing in the polls. If all you're doing is trying to vote for the winner, then you are the problem.

The pragmatic position was reflected in an earlier quote - "Politics is the art of the possible. " A pragmatist looks at the facts and recognizes that I can't get 100% of what I want, and if I cast my vote there, I may well wind up getting 0% of what I want. That's exactly what H. Ross Perot's candidacy did in 1992 by siphoning off enough votes that would have gone to Bush to get Clinton elected. Do the math and see for yourself. In this hypothetical election, the best possibility I can realistically hope for given the facts is to get my 90% candidate elected, so that's what I'll work to do.

How can anyone vote for someone who isn't their ideal candidate?

I answered that - by voting with one's head, not one's heart.



Rusty

 

[loncray]

The Ideal Candidate

Unless you run yourself, you will never find any candidate for national office who is 100% in agreement with you on all issues, no matter what your views may be. It would take a LOT of study to find what a candidate's views are on every single possible issue anyway. And even if the candidate seems to agree with you on most issues of importance, how can you ever be sure that they match your level of passion? Too little passion (at least less than your own) and they're stabbing you in the back (GWBush on the assault weapon issue for example), too much passion and they're extremists.

 

[Udaloy]

Originally posted by RustyJC

I may be a lot of things, my friend, but dumb isn't one of them. You've never met me, so let's keep the personal attacks out of it, OK?

-----

You need to re-read what I said before getting defensive. I said that you argued one of the dumbest points, not you're dumb. Big difference.

-----



The "straw man" candidate was set up for illustration only - take it for that. Doesn't Rush say that "I use the absurd to illustrate the ridiculous. " By the way, would you like me to give you the names of some pro-abortion Republicans?



-------

Do you only listen to what you want to hear? If you leave my comments in context, I was talking about a presidential candidate as this thread asked about. I realize there are some pro-abortion Republicans. I personally voted for a representative that's pro-gun and happens to be a democrat but he isn't running for president.

--------





The pragmatic position was reflected in an earlier quote - "Politics is the art of the possible. " A pragmatist looks at the facts and recognizes that I can't get 100% of what I want, and if I cast my vote there, I may well wind up getting 0% of what I want.



--------

You call it being a pragmatist, I call it not having a backbone. I guess we'll just agree to disagree on that one.

--------



loncray, you are right on. I was going to include that earlier. There is only one 'right' candidate and that's yourself. Everyone else will not measure up.

 

[RustyJC]

Originally posted by Udaloy

You call it being a pragmatist, I call it not having a backbone.

Gee, now, why would I get defensive about imagined personal attacks? Aside from not being dumb, neither am I a coward. You don't want to verify that for yourself, I guarantee you.



Vote however you wish - as I said earlier, it's a (relatively) free country.



Rusty