Bush announces support of Marriage Amendment

Yeah, but this time Bush has to beat the antiBush vote as well as the proDemocrat vote. The former may be more formidable than the latter.

 

Drp737, thanks very much for your willingness to consider the positioins of the CP. I am absolutely floored by the hostile attitudes of many here against a party that stands largely for what they claim to believe.

Also I understand your concerns about the vote. I urge you to consider a few points, though:

1) To me, a truly wasted vote is any vote for a candidate who will do what you don't want done. Kerry and Bush both fit that description, IMO.

2) As to no wanting to jeopardze Bush, I would suggest that Kerry is the "lesser EVIL" here. It can be objectively noted that Bush has pushed our nation further leftward in three and a half years than Clinton did in eight. With Kerry, at least the Republicans would stop much of his policy. With Bush, the Democrats don't stop him from implementing their policies, and sadly the Republicans don't stop him because he is a Republican (in name only).

3) The Republican Party will continue its leftward journey as long as we continue to support the leftists that they run for office.

4. The CP needs to get enough votes to grow into a major party. Sadly, there are MILLIONS of people who say that they like their position and are disgusted with the Demopublicans, but won't vote for them. Think what an earthshaking victory it would be for those millions to vote for what they believe in.

I will, and I hope that you will consider the same.


-PA Jim

 

KenH,

Al Gore, not Bush II, won the popular vote. And then there was this fiasco in Florida with all the recounts, etc.

If folks in Florida vote, demographically, the same way they did in 2000, Bush II would lose Florida solely due to changing demographics.

The Democrats have a chance. And I think a number of traditional Republicans may vote for Kerry solely on the basis of the Vietnam War issues and Bush II's apparent willingness to step into armed conflict with no real provocation.

There's a wonderful thing about a significant minority of Republican voters. They have higher standards for their candidates than the Dems do. We would have tossed out a Republican president who did the things that Clintod did, including lying under oath. We would never have nominated a draft dodger for POTUS. Gore couldn't use Bush II's Vietnam war sinecure and no-show status against him because he was heir apparent to a draft dodger. Kerry can use it.

It was funny to watch Bush II attack Kerry on the basis of receipt of special interest money...only to have his own vastly larger receipts of special interest money thrown back in his face.

This will happen again...I am relatively sure of it. Because Bush II's advisors will urge him to go negative on Kerry. And...bottom line...Kerry does not seem a person who is, overall, morally inferior to Bush II.

This minority of Republicans wants higher moral ground. And nomination of Kerry will deny this to them.

 

Oops, I'm sorry. I was talking about the vote in South Carolina in 2000, not the national vote talley which is irrelevant in our presidential election.

 

KenH,

I totally understand. And of course you are right that popular vote doesn't matter. Except with respect to claims of a "mandate from the American people" or some such.

Bush II will probably win NC again by a wide margin also. Unless religious conservatives decide to just sit this one out.