Losing Third Parties Don't Change History

[Pastor Gary]

Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Losing Third Parties Don't Change History
Posted by: Michael Medved at 4:41 AM

For third party purists, rejection by the general public confirms their sense of moral superiority and martyrdom: winning 0.03% with uncompromising principles feels somehow nobler than winning an election through the normal compromises and actually changing the direction of politics. In this sense, fringe party activism represents the ultimate in masturbatory politics: giving intense pleasure and passing thrills to the individual participants but exerting no impact whatever on anyone else.

On those rare occasions when third parties play some decisive role in close elections, they almost always damage the candidates who more closely resemble the independent contenders. Former Republican Ross Perot, for example, destroyed Republican President George H.W. Bush, leftist Ralph Nader damaged Al Gore, and “limited government” Libertarian Senate candidates in Montana, Washington, Georgia and other states recently swung elections to big government Democrats (and in 2006 tilted at least three close elections to give Harry Reid his one-vote Senate majority).

By taking votes from the major party contender who’s ideologically most similar, and rewarding those opponents who agree with them the least, independent candidates move the political process away from their professed goals, not toward them.

Most Americans have come to understand this cruel and dangerous game, so that even the most ballyhooed fringe candidates fail to live up to their promising poll numbers. In 1980, moderate Republican John Anderson believed the surveys and pundits who said he could establish himself as a middle-of-the-road alternative to the outspoken conservative Ronald Reagan and the failed liberal standard-bearer, Jimmy Carter. In the end, Anderson drew only 6.6%, fading fast in the last days before the election as the American people began to focus on the true stakes in the choice before them.

This pattern repeats itself in almost every election: even the most intriguing third-party flirtations abruptly turn sour in the “getting serious” phase that precedes a final decision. With an evenly divided electorate providing see-saw victories for Democrats and Republicans, an individual can change history far more readily by voting for one of the major candidates than by giving his support to a laughably irrelevant fringy. A shift of 0.5% can alter the outcome of many elections, but it changes nothing if a Constitution Party candidate gets 0.7% vs. 0.2%.

In this context, the American people remain too sensible to accept the fulminations of brain-dead blowhards like Lou Dobbs. “All that seems to remain of the Republican and Democratic parties is their partisanship, their labels, and their records of intransigence and ineffectiveness over the past forty years.” Over the past forty years, Mr. Dobbs? Since 1967? The Reagan Revolution, which won the Cold War and slashed top tax rates from 70% to 28%, represented only “intransigence and ineffectiveness”? Welfare reform and balanced budgets, achieved by the Gingrich Congress in collaboration with the administration of Bill Clinton, amounted to nothing more than “partisanship”?

Third party purists say they refuse to accept a choice between “the lesser of two evils” – a wretchedly misleading line that suggests that any public servant with whom we disagree is, indeed, evil and not merely wrong. In truth, very few working politicians, Republican or Democrat, honestly qualify as “evil”: the need for winning and retaining office won’t eliminate all mediocrities, but almost always rids us of any truly malevolent individuals. The notion that electoral opponents constitute “evil” of any kind – either the lesser or greater variety – serves only to poison our politics, and to prevent mature choices between major party candidates who, while invariably flawed, give us a chance to serve our country by selecting the better of two imperfects.

From: http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/

[Shellie]

I do plan on reading this when I have time. I skimmed it and it seemed pretty on track. Will really read later.

[Full Quiver]

I understand what the author is saying but the author quite frankly may not have the convictions that we share. In my opinion, any one that supports killing a baby is evil, period!
I may be seen as not compassionate for the mother who faces possible death if the baby is not killed but I am no murderer nor am I a proponent of murder in any form, for any reason.
Also, any woman who gets pregnant puts themselves at risk for possible death. It just happens sometimes. Those risks must be weighed beforehand and if you are willing to take such a risk to bring life into this world then you must be willing to sacrifice your own life for the baby's.

As I remember many of you guys were crying out for Bush in 2000 and 2004 over Gore and Kerry and did so loudest on the abortion issue. I'm saying all this because there ism a real possibility that the GOP could nominate Rudy and leave you with an evil candidate to vote for. Only God knows what he is capable of but good grief he might be 10 times worse than Hillary. As was pointed out in another thread he was not America's mayor till after the Sept. 11 attacks and if going to all the funerals of the police officers and firefighters that died qualifies one for the office of President of these United States then I'd recommend that anyone that desires the office visit the grave sites of those same fallen men and women as well as send a card or a personal visit to their children. Maybe then some of that character and integrity will rub off of Rudy and onto whomever.

[Sherry]

I understand what the author is saying but the author quite frankly may not have the convictions that we share. In my opinion, any one that supports killing a baby is evil, period!
I may be seen as not compassionate for the mother who faces possible death if the baby is not killed but I am no murderer nor am I a proponent of murder in any form, for any reason.
Also, any woman who gets pregnant puts themselves at risk for possible death. It just happens sometimes. Those risks must be weighed beforehand and if you are willing to take such a risk to bring life into this world then you must be willing to sacrifice your own life for the baby's.

This is about the most ignorant comment I have ever seen.

I pray Cats never has an etopic pregnancy or anything that would risk her life, if she did, you might be changing your mind. Especially if that left you a widower and all those kids motherless. It's easy to be so self rightous when you have never had to make that decision.

[Ilovebigcats]

I understand what the author is saying but the author quite frankly may not have the convictions that we share. In my opinion, any one that supports killing a baby is evil, period!
I may be seen as not compassionate for the mother who faces possible death if the baby is not killed but I am no murderer nor am I a proponent of murder in any form, for any reason.
Also, any woman who gets pregnant puts themselves at risk for possible death. It just happens sometimes. Those risks must be weighed beforehand and if you are willing to take such a risk to bring life into this world then you must be willing to sacrifice your own life for the baby's.

This is about the most ignorant comment I have ever seen.

I pray Cats never has an etopic pregnancy or anything that would risk her life, if she did, you might be changing your mind. Especially if that left you a widower and all those kids motherless. It's easy to be so self rightous when you have never had to make that decision.

He wouldn't have to. I have made my choices clear. Most of the time the baby is already dead by the time it is discovered. My mother had one. Her tube ruptured and she was bleeding to death. It wasn't a matter of her or the baby. The baby was dead and she was slowing dying.

[Full Quiver]

I guess God is ignorant then cause he says killing is wrong. I'm ok with that and I know that HIS grace is sufficient.

[Pastor Gary]

I guess God is ignorant then cause he says killing is wrong. I'm ok with that and I know that HIS grace is sufficient.

Actually, FQ, God says MURDER is wrong. That is not exactly what you said.

[Full Quiver]

And abortion is murder in all cases.

[Pastor Gary]

And abortion is murder in all cases.

Danny, I am vehemently anti-abortion, as you are, but let's examine your statement that "...abortion is murder in all cases."

The scriptures teach that "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." (1st Timothy 5:8 ) and we know that passage is not limited to financial provision -- it also extends to men providing safety and protection, because Jesus, himself, said in Mark 3:37 "No man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house."

So it is clear, at least to me, that as the husband/head of my household, I have a responsibility to work to provide for the needs of my family, and I have a responsibility to protect as best I can against harm.

So -- and you'll find a lot of this thinking in historic Jewish literature -- let's take a scenario:

You are in your home and have a weapon in hand. An intruder enters and threatens the life of your wife. You know that if you do not use the weapon at your disposal, your wife is about to die. Now, Biblically, what is the right thing to do, stand and watch your wife die, or take action as the strong man of the house, bound to a responsibility to provide and protect?

I can't answer for you, but, for me, the threat will be neutralized or eliminated by any means at my disposal, because I believe that is my Biblically mandated role.

Now, imagine that the intruder is one of your children, who has come in and threatened to kill your wife. A much harder choice, but the Biblical mandate doesn't change at all.

Now imagine the "intruder" is a 28-week in utero unborn child, and the continued presence of that little unborn threatens to kill your wife. As hard as that decision may be, it falls, for me, under the same Biblical mandate: I will protect the life of my wife (and that is the primary scriptural role of the husband, even more than protecting his children) over anything or anyone who poses a threat.

[Full Quiver]

Imagine that o ye of little faith.

[Steve]

Why not have our cake and eat it too? According to Rasmussen,
Huckabee is tied for second NATIONALLY!

and

at 24% in Iowa, only 2 points behind Romney!

[biblemanryan]

According to the Rasmussen numbers, Huckabee is slowly climbing. It seemed that most of the others either stayed roughly the same, or dropped, with the exception of Guiliani, who climbed a little.

[Full Quiver]

Huckaby is for amnesty.

Gary, God's command men against killing cannot be overweighed by His commandment to provide for your family. Rightly divide my friend. When we do we will find there are not exceptions to His rules unless He specifically points out such as divorce/fornication.

[Pastor Gary]

Gary, God's command men against killing cannot be overweighed by His commandment to provide for your family. Rightly divide my friend. When we do we will find there are not exceptions to His rules unless He specifically points out such as divorce/fornication.

Murder, Danny... not killing... murder, is condemned. Otherwise, every Christian man or woman who fought for your freedom to post here is going to Hell.

Here's some right dividing for you: Did God ever tell anyone to take the life of another?

[Steve]

Huckaby is for amnesty.

Umm....no he's not. Here is Point ONE from his website:

Truth Squad: Immigration Facts
November 02, 2007

Immigration Facts

- The Governor opposes and will never allow amnesty.

This may be where this skewing of the facts came from.