Attorney General resigns

[Pastor Larry]

Where we depart is the belief that it is still better to support Republicans than Democrats. My idea is that we need new choices.

I don't think we depart on that. I think we depart on what we do when we have no new choices. There is not, at this time, any viable third party choice. And I don't think just sitting on the side lines is acceptable since there is more than one issue at stake.

If the only issue were spending, then let's all stay home. They wll all spend like drunken sailors. But there are more issues that we must considert

 

[saturneptune]

I don't think we depart on that. I think we depart on what we do when we have no new choices. There is not, at this time, any viable third party choice. And I don't think just sitting on the side lines is acceptable since there is more than one issue at stake.

If the only issue were spending, then let's all stay home. They wll all spend like drunken sailors. But there are more issues that we must considert

On that I agree. What happens when a Giuliani (pro abortion) or a Romney (deceives about abortion) is the nominee, and run against a Clinton (or any Demcorat), which is quite possible.

Now we have moved from the realm of spending and other worldy issues to the very crux of morality. How would a Christian in good conscience be able to vote for either? I consider the fact that two leaders for the Republican nomination are pro choice as another sign of the demise of the Republicans.

There may not at this time be a viable third party. However, the question will still remain, who will a Christian cast a vote for in Novemeber 2008 given the above choices?

 

[James_Newman]

The real reason Gonzales resigned...
http://www.truthdig.com/images/eartothegrounduploads/lkgonzo_resigns500.jpg

 

[hillclimber1]

On that I agree. What happens when a Giuliani (pro abortion) or a Romney (deceives about abortion) is the nominee, and run against a Clinton (or any Demcorat), which is quite possible.

hillclimber: Giuliani, is just what he says he is IMHO, therefore I can't support him. (abortion) But Romney has changed his mind as to the abortion issue, and I'll take him at his word on that.

Now we have moved from the realm of spending and other worldy issues to the very crux of morality. How would a Christian in good conscience be able to vote for either? I consider the fact that two leaders for the Republican nomination are pro choice as another sign of the demise of the Republicans.

You'll never find the perfect candidate, that fills every one of your (or mine) standards. The vote is always the lessor of two evils, or not vote.

There may not at this time be a viable third party. However, the question will still remain, who will a Christian cast a vote for in Novemeber 2008 given the above choices?

I'll probably end up voting for the Republican nominee, as any potential Democrat is not an option.

I suspect many Republicans, that are of the religious right are being conditioned as we speak to not vote, and that will probably insure a Democrat victory. Many on this very board are bowing out of this struggle, in choosing not to vote, or in voting third party. Either choice will help the Dems., and harm the GOP.

 

[KenH]

There is not, at this time, any viable third party choice.

If all of the people who bemoan that there is not a viable party other than the Democrat and Republican Parties would vote for another party, then there would be a viable party other than the Democrat and Republican Parties.

 

[KenH]

Either choice will help the Dems., and harm the GOP.

Your reasoning is flawed. You assume that the default position of most everyone on this board is to vote Republican. That is simply not the case.

 

[poncho]

If the democrats win the WH they won't have to give up warrantless searches, domestic spying, extraordinary rendition and torture or restore habeas corpus and due process just because Gonzales resigned will they?

 

[Pastor Larry]

What happens when a Giuliani (pro abortion) or a Romney (deceives about abortion) is the nominee, and run against a Clinton (or any Demcorat), which is quite possible.

You don't know that Romney is deceiving about abortion. He may well have changed his position. As I pointed out, Kennedy did and no one accuses him of deceiving. I honestly don't know what his position is.

How would a Christian in good conscience be able to vote for either? I consider the fact that two leaders for the Republican nomination are pro choice as another sign of the demise of the Republicans.

Yes a sign of the demise of the Republicans. But let's view it this way. Let's assume the Repub and the Dem are both prochoice to at least some degree and there is no viable third party. There is still a difference on some other issues. I am not sure the "take my ball and go home" is hte best way. Bush didn't do enough about abortion. But thanks to those who didn't vote for Baldwin, we have two apparently conservative Supreme Court justicies

Remember the lesson sof 92. Perot, a third party, took enough vote from Bush to give us Clinton. Who knows what Bush would have done, but the third party candidate means that Clinton got elected with a majority of people voting against him. (Strangely I don't hear Hillary or John Kery or Gore complaining aobut that electorla college occasion).

[quoteThere may not at this time be a viable third party. However, the question will still remain, who will a Christian cast a vote for in Novemeber 2008 given the above choices?[/quote]Since we are not given the above choices yet, I don't have ot decide. Not sure what I would do. But I am not a single issue voter. If we are going to have abortion (which I detest as much if not much more than you do I imagine), I am going to consider other things as well.

 

[Pastor Larry]

If all of the people who bemoan that there is not a viable party other than the Democrat and Republican Parties would vote for another party, then there would be a viable party other than the Democrat and Republican Parties.

If there were another viable party, I would certainly consider voting for them. but there's not. That's the problem Ken. We live in reality, not in the dreamworld.

 

[StefanM]

Yes a sign of the demise of the Republicans. But let's view it this way. Let's assume the Repub and the Dem are both prochoice to at least some degree and there is no viable third party. There is still a difference on some other issues. I am not sure the "take my ball and go home" is hte best way. Bush didn't do enough about abortion. But thanks to those who didn't vote for Baldwin, we have two apparently conservative Supreme Court justicies

The problem with Giuliani isn't that he doesn't do enough about abortion; it's that he is pro-choice. Bush isn't pro-choice; he's just not overly pro-life.

I'm an odd duck, though. As much as I don't want Hillary to be president, I'd much rather have her than Giuliani, if for no other reason than the effect it would have on the GOP. If Guiliani wins, it will be proof that social concerns can be ignored.

 

[StefanM]

I'd rather the GOP be destroyed than to have it fall into the hands of RINOs.

IMO, the only way for a third party to emerge is to destroy one of the big two. The Democrats are alive and well because they generally enforce their political orthodoxy. Republicans stand for whatever is needed to get elected in their respective districts (cf. Arlen Specter, Arnold the Governator, Giuliani, etc.).

 

[KenH]

We live in reality, not in the dreamworld.

The reality is that there are minor party and independent candidates. And, believe me, I have availed myself of the opportunity to vote for them often during my voting career and I plan on continuing to do so.

Not that it will matter in Arkansas in 2008, which Senator Clinton will carrry comfortably.

 

[KenH]

Remember the lesson sof 92. Perot, a third party, took enough vote from Bush to give us Clinton.

That is only conjecture. It has not been proven. I have read a strong case made for the Perot candidacy to have hurt Bush's vote only marginally, certainly nowhere near enough to have overcome his Electoral College deficit to Clinton.

I think that argument is one that some people make to avoid admitting that the GOP ran a very poor candidate for president in 1992 in the form of a another failed Bush presidency.

 

[Pastor Larry]

The reality is that there are minor party and independent candidates.

Yes, but as I have poitned out, they have not been able to gain enough viability to become a serious candidate and that troubles me, but it is not an easy fix.

That is only conjecture. It has not been proven. I have read a strong case made for the Perot candidacy to have hurt Bush's vote only marginally, certainly nowhere near enough to have overcome his Electoral College deficit to Clinton.

The studies I read (years ago) were that Perot took from Bush not Clinton. In a two party race, Bush (for better or worse) would have won. I am no fan of Bush I, but I was merely commenting on my recollection of the election.

I think that argument is one that some people make to avoid admitting that the GOP ran a very poor candidate for president in 1992 in the form of a another failed Bush presidency.

I am not trying to avoid that. I think Bush I was bad Bush II is bad. Clinton was extremely bad but happened to catch the economic cycle in the right place as well as the Republican revelationof 94 that helped him out tremendously.

In the end, we will never know exactly what would have happened. The hypotheticals are more fun (and less damaging) than the reality.

 

[EdSutton]

The reality is that there are minor party and independent candidates. And, believe me, I have availed myself of the opportunity to vote for them often during my voting career and I plan on continuing to do so.

He has a point. There already are both "minor party" officials as well "independents", currently and formerly in elected office. Sens. Bernie Sanders ( a socialist - VT ) and Joe Lieberman re-elected as an independent- CT) are two current examples, and the former Governor of MN, (Jesse Ventura - Reform Party) and two former Senators - James Buckley (Conservative- NY) and Harry F. Byrd, Jr. (Ind. VA) are three others. And, in fact, both major parties of today started out as minor or third parties. The Democratic Party originated when the two 'major' parties were the Federalist and Anti-Federalist parties, and the Republican Party when the two major parties were that of the Democrats and the Whigs. Is there even one person claiming to be a member of the Federalist, Anti-federalist or Whig parties even around today, let alone in office? I seriously doubt it.

But that is more of these are not elected is not the fault of either or both of the two major parties.

"We, the people" have no one to blame for this lack of more other elected officials, other than "We, the people".

It is not illegal for anyone to run for office, nor is is impossible (or illegal) to get on the ballot if one is not a member of these two "biggies". It may be somewhat more difficult, in having to qualify, but it is in no way impossible. The above examples prove exactly that. Vote or not vote for them as you choose. But don't fall for the fallacy that one cannot be elected otherwise. And that includes elected as President. It simply ain't so!

Ed

 

[hillclimber1]

As much as I don't want Hillary to be president, I'd much rather have her than Giuliani, if for no other reason than the effect it would have on the GOP. If Guiliani wins, it will be proof that social concerns can be ignored.

While agree with your conclusion, a hillary victory would be disastrous.

 

[carpro]

Gonzales' resignation may be the worst thing that could happen to democrats.

They either have to find a new distraction to keep people from realizing how ineffective they are and how little they have accomplished or they will actually have to govern.

I believe they will put forth a major effort to find a new distraction.:thumbs:

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Now the top 3 jobs at Justice are vacant. Wheels coming off a lame duck regime?