In his debate with Ralph Nader, Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin asserted that conservatives should vote for him as a matter of principle and not yield to the "lesser of two evils" doctrine. Let me first say that I really like the principles of the Constitution Party and intend to consider getting involved with them after this election. I also believe in the principles of our Founders as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Yet one of my principles has to do with evaluating each political choice within the framework of the current reality. In other words, I don't see the guiding principles of conservatism as operating in an idealistic vacuum but rather in the political realities of the real world.
I have no objection to the idea of a third or fourth party, but only once have I voted for a third party candidate and that was in a governers race here in Pennsylvania (she was the only anti-abortion candidate). Even though this candidate did not win, she did get about 15% of the vote, which had the effect of holding the feet to the fire of the one who did win (at least for a little while). So I can understand voting for a third party candidate as a means of sending a message to the winner, especially if that winner is the lesser of the two evils. But if the lesser is not assured of victory and the greater presents a genuine assault of evil against the principles our nation was founded upon, then I must disagree with Mr. Baldwin and vote for the lesser.
I may have voted for Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, but I only would have been helping Wilson get elected. If I had voted for Perot in 1992, I only would have contributed to the victory of Bill Clinton. The truth is, those liberals who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 may be the reason George W. Bush made it into the Oval Office. These are political realities. Next Tuesday, at least in the swing states, a vote for Baldwin is tantamount to a vote for Obama. My conscious and judgment just won't let me go there, irrespective of how attractive the Constitution Party may be. Maybe in four years, but not this year. The stacks are too high. When the choice is between a RINO and a Marxist, the RINO must win.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I voted for that third party woman, and I voted for the Constitution Party candidate for president in '04. I find McCain repugnant; had he not selected Sarah Palin, I don't think I'd be voting for him. However, I see my vote for McCain next Tuesday as an attempt to save my country.
I just sent this note to a friend who is promoting Chuck Baldwin: I have never been a big fan of John McCain for many reasons, but I do believe that he will do one important thing that will radically change the current system, and I consider this to be the foundational thing that will ultimately alter everything else. He will appoint judges that will overturn Roe vs Wade. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter what a person's view is on the war, economics, or anything else. As long as we as a nation are on record as believing it is okay to shed innocent blood, nothing is going to work out. It has been all down hill since January 22, 1973. If I can help put a man in office who will change that, I will do it. I know that Chuck Baldwin would to that too, but he will not win. So to me, we have a choice between a man who will maintain the status quo on legalized murder of children and one who will change it. I can't in good conscience help to put the one who will keep it the same for four more years in office. Of course, the winner of Pennsylvania is still in doubt. If I lived in Massachusetts as you do, I would vote for Baldwin because it is a given that Obama will win there, so why not strengthen the Constitutional Party. But if I lived in Ohio, Virginia, New Mexico, Missouri, or Minnesota, I would vote for McCain. Hope this makes since.
Dave, don't forget: The president can only nominate justices; they must be confirmed by the senate. The current Senate, or an even worse one resulting from the '08 elections, will not look favorably on conservative appointees. Heck, it took a "gang of 14" to get through the ones W got through. If it were you or I, we'd let the vacancy go 'til Kingdom Come; but McCain won't do that. If pressured by the socialists in the Senate, he'll convince himself that some stiff who Arlen Spector likes is really a conservative.
I guess we can only pray that you are wrong and that he has more of a spine than that. Sadly, his Senate history does not inspire a lot of hope.
Post a Comment