The reason not to vote for 3rd party candidate.

[seeker_two]

So how are McCain's liberal nominees better than Obama's?

Best. Question. Ever. Asked.

[Desertdog]

So how are McCain's liberal nominees better than Obama's?

It's like the difference in "might" and "will".

McCain "might" appoint liberal judges, or "might" not appoint liberal judges.

We know Obama "will" appoint the most liberal, progressive judges he can find/

[anygunanywhere]

So who in either party has made a huge push for balanced budgets that wasn't already due to Perot?

Thought so.

Bill Clinton

Oh, please. At what cost to the social security fund? The only push Bill CLinton did was......never mind.

I suppose your man BHO will continue Clinton's economic course?

Anygunanywhere

[macadore]

So who in either party has made a huge push for balanced budgets that wasn't already due to Perot?

Thought so.

Bill Clinton

Oh, please. At what cost to the social security fund? The only push Bill CLinton did was......never mind.

I suppose your man BHO will continue Clinton's economic course?

Anygunanywhere

Straw man arguments? Is that all you have? Would you care to justify your, your man BHO comment? 

Let me make this simple. Ross Perot campaigned on the need for a balanced budget. He lost but Bill Clinton balanced the budget.

[Silver Bullet]

McCain will appoint liberal Justices ?  I think not.


From http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/02/11/politics/fromtheroad/entry3819847.shtml

There are estimates and, I dont know if theyre true or not, that there are going to be a couple of vacancies on the Supreme Court in the next presidential term. I am proud to have played a role in the appointment of some great justices to the Court. I am very proud to have played a role in the appointment, nomination of two great Supreme Court justices Roberts and Alito," McCain said.

I tell you I will nominate only people who have a clear, complete adherence to the Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench. Thats who Ill nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court

From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-kendall/fearing-the-mccain-suprem_b_87101.html

A close look at John McCain's Senate voting record on judicial confirmations makes it painfully clear that progressives need to ignore the rantings of the Ann Coulter crowd and believe John McCain when he says he will listen to Sam Brownback and appoint judges like Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia. On judges, McCain's no moderate: if given the chance, he will appoint justices that move an already conservative Supreme Court sharply to the right.

Indeed, one looks in vain for a judge who is too ideologically conservative for McCain: he voted to confirm Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and, unless I've missed something, every other Republican judicial nominee voted on in his 22 years in the Senate.

Even more tellingly, as part of his negotiation in 2005 of what has been dubbed the "Gang of 14 Deal" (more on this later), McCain pushed, hard, for the confirmation of both William Pryor and Janice Rogers Brown, the two hardest-edged conservatives appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush.

No one thinks John McCain would nominate ethically-challenged judges. But there is every reason to think that he will nominate ideological conservatives to the Supreme Court and lower federal courts.

From the Wall Street Journal http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120209536777639949.html

In fact, there is no reason to believe that Mr. McCain will not make excellent appointments to the court. On judicial nominations, he has voted soundly in the past from Robert Bork in 1987 to Samuel Alito in 2006. His pro-life record also provides a surety that he will not appoint judicial activists.

[anygunanywhere]

So who in either party has made a huge push for balanced budgets that wasn't already due to Perot?

Thought so.

Bill Clinton

Oh, please. At what cost to the social security fund? The only push Bill CLinton did was......never mind.

I suppose your man BHO will continue Clinton's economic course?

Anygunanywhere

Straw man arguments? Is that all you have? Would you care to justify your, your man BHO comment? 

Let me make this simple. Ross Perot campaigned on the need for a balanced budget. He lost but Bill Clinton balanced the budget.

My "your man BHO" comment stands. My avatar has a handgun, yours has BHO, unless my eyes are really deteriorating rapidly. Bill Clinton did not balance the budget. Have some more Kool-aid.

Anygunanywhere

[macadore]

So who in either party has made a huge push for balanced budgets that wasn't already due to Perot?

Thought so.

Bill Clinton

Oh, please. At what cost to the social security fund? The only push Bill CLinton did was......never mind.

I suppose your man BHO will continue Clinton's economic course?

Anygunanywhere

Straw man arguments? Is that all you have? Would you care to justify your, your man BHO comment? 

Let me make this simple. Ross Perot campaigned on the need for a balanced budget. He lost but Bill Clinton balanced the budget.

My "your man BHO" comment stands. My avatar has a handgun, yours has BHO, unless my eyes are really deteriorating rapidly. Bill Clinton did not balance the budget. Have some more Kool-aid.

Anygunanywhere

The budget was balanced during the Clinton administration. You may be in denial about that, but it happened.

Here is what I find interesting about my avatar.

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-Hitler11cx.jpg

http://listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/adolf-hitler-biography-2.jpg

Do you see the similarities?

[anygunanywhere]

double

[anygunanywhere]

So who in either party has made a huge push for balanced budgets that wasn't already due to Perot?

Thought so.

Bill Clinton

Oh, please. At what cost to the social security fund? The only push Bill CLinton did was......never mind.

I suppose your man BHO will continue Clinton's economic course?

Anygunanywhere

Straw man arguments? Is that all you have? Would you care to justify your, your man BHO comment? 

Let me make this simple. Ross Perot campaigned on the need for a balanced budget. He lost but Bill Clinton balanced the budget.

My "your man BHO" comment stands. My avatar has a handgun, yours has BHO, unless my eyes are really deteriorating rapidly. Bill Clinton did not balance the budget. Have some more Kool-aid.

Anygunanywhere

The budget was balanced during the Clinton administration. You may be in denial about that, but it happened.

Here is what I find interesting about my avatar.

http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-Hitler11cx.jpg

http://listverse.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/adolf-hitler-biography-2.jpg

Do you see the similarities?

He may have been in the white house but he had maybe a little more to do with balancing the budget as I did.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5656

[macadore]

He may have been in the white house but he had maybe a little more to do with balancing the budget as I did.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5656

And none of this was due to Ross Perots Presidential campaign? It was just coincidence?

[erictank]

Vote Your Conscience does not necessarily equal Vote Responsibly.  Voting for someone with no realistic chance of winning pulls a vote away from someone who does have a chance to win. 

I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again: Voting your conscience ***IS*** voting responsibly.  Neither of the Big Two candidates own my vote - and neither of them have done one frakking thing to earn it.  Since a vote for the (R) candidate tells the RNC, "Yes, I'm COMPLETELY HAPPY with not only the direction your party has taken this country in, but with ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING the current candidate has ever done.", and a vote for the (D) candidate sends the same message to the DNC, what's that leave for someone who does NOT believe that the Big Two have ANYTHING worthwhile to offer the country between them?

Then you have a very real chance of the single worst candidate being the winner even though a huge majority of voters didn't vote for them.  Clinton's second term is a perfect example of that.  Clinton won even though 56.36% of the voting public did NOT vote for him.  All because H. Ross Perot, who had about as much chance of winning as Mickey Mouse, pulled in 18.91% of the vote.  If even half the people who voted for him had voted for Bush, Bush would have won by a comfortable 4% margin.

So, yes, voting for someone who doesn't have a chance of winning IS throwing away your vote.  And it's a slap in the face to those who vote realistically.  Even though they have a candidate they much prefer, they know there are only two who have a chance at winning, and they know that one of those candidates WILL be the winner no matter how much they wish otherwise.  So they do the responsible thing.  They vote for the candidate who, in their view, will have the least negative impact on the country.  It is neither pleasant nor enjoyable.  It is, however, real life.

Brad

Thanks to the circular reasoning you present, we'll never HAVE any valid challengers to the Big Two, will we?

And as a result, we get to wonder why we always have such morons, idiots, and would-be-tyrants elected to office - well, it's because thanks to "voting for the lesser of two evils", THAT'S WHAT THEY THINK WE WANT!  Keep voting for the same sort of jerks all the time, you'll keep GETTING the same sort of jerks all the time.

Anyone insisting that I "owe" my vote to any particular politician, for the best of reasons or for any reason at all - well, I think you know where you can stick it. 

Brad, you may consider this the slap to your face you mentioned in your post.

[Manedwolf]

Vote Your Conscience does not necessarily equal Vote Responsibly.  Voting for someone with no realistic chance of winning pulls a vote away from someone who does have a chance to win. 

I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again: Voting your conscience ***IS*** voting responsibly.  Neither of the Big Two candidates own my vote - and neither of them have done one frakking thing to earn it.  Since a vote for the (R) candidate tells the RNC, "Yes, I'm COMPLETELY HAPPY with not only the direction your party has taken this country in, but with ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING the current candidate has ever done.", and a vote for the (D) candidate sends the same message to the DNC, what's that leave for someone who does NOT believe that the Big Two have ANYTHING worthwhile to offer the country between them?

5-4 Heller.

Keep thinking about that one.

[Desertdog]

Thanks to the circular reasoning you present, we'll never HAVE any valid challengers to the Big Two, will we?

I have said it before and I will say it again, have your candidate get a title of one of the major parties and then we can vote for him for president with a POSSIBILITY of winning.

There is nothing that says a Libertarian cannot run as a Republican, remember Ron Paul, or as a Democrat.

I believe that if a Catholic, Morman, Baptist, Athist or whatever can run for president as a Republica or Democrat, there is no reason a Libertaian or a Constitutional party member can't run for the presidency as a Republican or Democrat, with a better chance of winning than running as a 3rd party candidate

The other choice, and possibly better choice, is to run for the Congress or Senate.  Remember that the house is replaced every  2 years and 1/3 of the Senate runs every 2 years.

I will vote for a Libertarian Party candidate for Congressman or Senator under their party lable, but not for President under theirparty label.

[erictank]

5-4 Heller.

Keep thinking about that one.

Concurring opinions in Heller:
Justice Antonin Scalia - appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. - appointed by Republican President George W. Bush.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy - appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan.
Justice Clarence Thomas - appointed by Republican President George H. W. Bush.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. - appointed by Republican President George W. Bush.

Dissenting opinions in Heller:
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg - appointed by Democratic President William Clinton.
Justice Steven Breyer - appointed by Democratic President William Clinton.
Justed David Souter - appointed by Republican President George H.W. Bush.
Justice John Paul Stevens - appointed by Republican President Gerald Ford.

Hmmm.  Half of the dissenting Justices in Heller were appointed by two different Republican Presidents.

What were you saying, again?

[stevelyn]

The reason Bill Clinton was elected the first time was because of a 3rd Party Candidate split the Republican vote.

No. The real reason Clinton won was because GHW Bush turned out to be a *expletive deleted*bag and real conservatives voted for Perot who more ideally represented our views.

The party kool-aid drinkers stayed with the sinking Bush ship instead of doing the right thing and we ended up with Bubba.

So how are McCain's liberal nominees better than Obama's?

They're not. And it's going to be compounded by leftist control of the Senate. So we're screwed any way we turn.

[Desertdog]

Hmmm.  Half of the dissenting Justices in Heller were appointed by two different Republican Presidents.

True, but all of the pro-second amendment judges were nominated by Republican presidents.

They're not. And it's going to be compounded by leftist control of the Senate. So we're screwed any way we turn.

Not if we can vote out enough of the a**ho**s in the Senate and House.

[Silver Bullet]

So how are McCain's liberal nominees better than Obama's?

They're not. And it's going to be compounded by leftist control of the Senate. So we're screwed any way we turn.

stevelyn, I just posted several references that show why McCain's nominees will be better than Obama's.  In essence, the authors referred to McCain's voting record in the matter of Federal judges.  I find his voting record very convincing evidence.  Do you have any evidence that McCain's nominees will not be better than Obama's ?

[erictank]

Hmmm.  Half of the dissenting Justices in Heller were appointed by two different Republican Presidents.

True, but all of the pro-second amendment judges were nominated by Republican presidents.

One of whom also gave us one of the dissenters in Heller.  Point is, not one but TWO (R) Presidents gave us Justices casting dissenting votes in Heller.  McCain is offered as a panacea against "bad" SCOTUS Justices, because he has an (R) next to his name on the ballot - well, it demonstratedly ain't so.  McCain's record does not inspire me to confidence that he would be *ANY* better in that regard.  Quite the opposite, in fact.

[Desertdog]

McCain is offered as a panacea against "bad" SCOTUS Justices,

Do you think there is any possibity that an Obama nominated judge would vote pro second amendment?   How do you think an Obama judge would uphold any of the Amendments.  Do you think an Obama judge vote for or against the  "Fairness Doctrine." 

[Silver Bullet]

McCain's record does not inspire me to confidence that he would be *ANY* better in that regard.  Quite the opposite, in fact.

Considering that McCain's record on federal judges has been very solidly on the conservative side, what part of his record makes you think he would be worse than Obama ?

[xavier fremboe]

I have voted straight ticket Libertarian since 1992 (not counting writing myself in for Governor for the past three elections), but I will be voting for McCain this year.  Heller 5-4, and the promised tax increases are reason enough, but I also don't want to listen to twits whinging about the popular vote count.  I want BHO defeated in every way possible.

If your pocket book can stand the sunset of the tax cuts, the lifting of the SS cap, sunset of the estate tax and a rollback of the capital gains taxes, vote your conscience.  BHO has promised me a pay cut, and I don't intend to take it.  As far as I'm concerned, idealism be damned this year.  I'm going to pull the lever for Johnny Mac and sleep like a baby.

[stevelyn]

So how are McCain's liberal nominees better than Obama's?

They're not. And it's going to be compounded by leftist control of the Senate. So we're screwed any way we turn.

stevelyn, I just posted several references that show why McCain's nominees will be better than Obama's.  In essence, the authors referred to McCain's voting record in the matter of Federal judges.  I find his voting record very convincing evidence.  Do you have any evidence that McCain's nominees will not be better than Obama's ?

No, I admit I never looked at McCain's voting record on fed judges or even thought about it. Perhaps you do have good reasons to be optimistic on McCain justice nominations. But the reality is they will still have to make it past a democratically controlled senate and he may end up nominating less than desireable judges just to get them on the bench.

[xavier fremboe]

So how are McCain's liberal nominees better than Obama's?

They're not. And it's going to be compounded by leftist control of the Senate. So we're screwed any way we turn.

stevelyn, I just posted several references that show why McCain's nominees will be better than Obama's.  In essence, the authors referred to McCain's voting record in the matter of Federal judges.  I find his voting record very convincing evidence.  Do you have any evidence that McCain's nominees will not be better than Obama's ?

No, I admit I never looked at McCain's voting record on fed judges or even thought about it. Perhaps you do have good reasons to be optimistic on McCain justice nominations. But the reality is they will still have to make it past a democratically controlled senate and he may end up nominating less than desireable judges just to get them on the bench.

I believe Reagan got Thomas past a Democratic Senate.  Scalia, too.

[seeker_two]

So how are McCain's liberal nominees better than Obama's?

They're not. And it's going to be compounded by leftist control of the Senate. So we're screwed any way we turn.

stevelyn, I just posted several references that show why McCain's nominees will be better than Obama's.  In essence, the authors referred to McCain's voting record in the matter of Federal judges.  I find his voting record very convincing evidence.  Do you have any evidence that McCain's nominees will not be better than Obama's ?

No, I admit I never looked at McCain's voting record on fed judges or even thought about it. Perhaps you do have good reasons to be optimistic on McCain justice nominations. But the reality is they will still have to make it past a democratically controlled senate and he may end up nominating less than desireable judges just to get them on the bench.

I believe Reagan got Thomas past a Democratic Senate.  Scalia, too.

Does anyone here believe that McCain is made of the "sterner stuff" that Reagan had to do that?......

[Desertdog]

Does anyone here believe that McCain is made of the "sterner stuff" that Reagan had to do that?......

That is an unknown even if most of us think not.  But I, personally, believe he will nominate better judges than BO.  Then it is up to the Senate to approve or reject his nominations.  If the Senate rejects McCain's we start raising so much hell with the Senators that they do start passing his nominations.

Remember, they work for us, and we can fire them.