Republican Primary

[ishii]

So I guess what I’m saying is apply the same standard to all of them and don’t forgive in Santorum or Gingrich the same unacceptable behavior/positions in them if you aren’t willing to give the same grace to Romney.
Lisa

Or Ron Paul, for that matter. I mean, Ron Paul has not had any power ever has he? So we don’t really know what he’d do if he were to ever gain power. You could look at his votes which have been consistent of course, but what hard choices has he ever had to make? What vote or position has he taken in which we are able to see what the consequences of the votes were? Has he ever been faced with a tough choice and had to take a risk? Say what you want about Romney and the others, they have been in the thick of things making hard choices - Romney as governor, Santorum as senator and even Gingrich as speaker. They all have had to make hard choices because their votes had consequences. Santorum had to choose who to endorse for senate - Pat Toomey or Arlen Spector. Endorse Toomey and if he looses you lose the senate perhaps and limit your ability to get Alito or Roberts approved. Endorse Spector and you’ll catch flack for everything he does - including changing parties. I am not saying that we shouldn’t hold our politicians accountable, rather I am merely comparing the experience of Romney, Santorum and Gingrich with what Ron Paul has done, or not done. Its easy to be the “true believer” candidate when you’ve never had to make a seriously tough decision while in office. What frame of reference do we use to judge how Ron Paul would act or lead in crisis situations? Anyway, just a thought.

Ishii

 

[pnewton]

A vote for a 3rd party is a vote for Obama, though (almost no one votes for the wacko far left parties)

This summer will be the time to decide what course to take, but I am sufficiently intelligent enough not to by this old tired line. I have been through too many elections to bite at this lame argument.

 

[ishii]

This summer will be the time to decide what course to take, but I am sufficiently intelligent enough not to by this old tired line. I have been through too many elections to bite at this lame argument.

The thing you’re not considering is that this is not an ordinary election year with a typical Democrat - its the most left/liberal pro-abortion president in history trying to get another four years to push his programs! What more do you need to learn about Obama and his administration to be convinced of the absolute necessity of defeating him? Would it help if he threw a few bishops in jail for defying his HHS mandate? A few Catholic hospitals closing? A Catholic charity? School? What does it take for you to realize that this isn’t just another Democrat vs Republican election of the past?

Ishii

 

[pnewton]

The thing you’re not considering is that this is not an ordinary election year with a typical Democrat -

I do know that. I knew it last year when the same thing happened (same guy, remember) and the Republicans nominated McCain. I just do not accept the silliness that a vote for any one else is a vote for Obama. If that were true, then it would not bother Republicans that Democrats do all this voter registration and busing. No, a vote for Obama is in fact worse than no vote or a third party vote, for the Republicans. I just do not care for disingenuous rhetoric.

I have more of a better memory than to buy into the same lines every year.

 

[LisaA]

This summer will be the time to decide what course to take, but I am sufficiently intelligent enough not to by this old tired line. I have been through too many elections to bite at this lame argument.

Really? How about Ross Perot getting enough votes to tilt the election? Even in Gore vs Bush, Ralph Nadar got enough votes to kink things for Gore (and thank heavens he did). Remember in the presidential election the electoral college makes things different than your local Senate race where it’s the popular vote. A few votes in one state or another can change the entire country’s results. Many credit Ohio alone in putting Bush in for a second term. Any of these big states with a large electoral college matter, and if the election is a squeaker I would hope and pray that you care enough about the country to consider voting for an imperfect candidate (in your opinion) instead of letting the election and the country go down in flames while the purists proudly say “I voted for the most ____ candidate” although he didn’t have a snowball’s chance.

Ishii did a great job demonstrating the HUGE difference between this election and 2008. Please read this analysis and reconsider your position. Believe me I didn’t like McCain at all but I knew he’d be better than Obama. I know many people who either stayed home or didn’t vote for president because they “couldn’t vote for McCain (or Palin)” How’s that theory workin out folks?

Look at what Obama has done when he still gives a rat’s patooty about what we think. Imagine that horrible ideology writ large for another four years. God help us if that happens.

Lisa

 

[ProVobis]

I just do not accept the silliness that a vote for any one else is a vote for Obama. If that were true, then it would not bother Republicans that Democrats do all this voter registration and busing. No, a vote for Obama is in fact worse than no vote or a third party vote, for the Republicans. I just do not care for disingenuous rhetoric.

I agree. A no-vote or a write-in or a vote for a third-party is one FEWER vote for the incumbent president. It gives him one FEWER vote for a political mandate (which Clinton never had incidentally.) It also sends the proper message to both corrupted major parties. To vote for the lesser of two evils is not the same thing as to vote for the lesser of all evils.

 

[LisaA]

I agree. A no-vote or a write-in or a vote for a third-party is one FEWER vote for the incumbent president. It gives him one FEWER vote for a political mandate (which Clinton never had incidentally.) It also sends the proper message to both corrupted major parties. To vote for the lesser of two evils is not the same thing as to vote for the lesser of all evils.

Uh isn’t it also one FEWER vote for the challenger too? IOW you are giving Obama the effect of one more vote by throwing your vote away on some unelectable spoiler.

Lisa

 

[ProVobis]

Uh isn’t it also one FEWER vote for the challenger too? IOW you are giving Obama the effect of one more vote by throwing your vote away on some unelectable spoiler.

Lisa

And why would I want to vote to reinforce the corruption, which gave us Roe vs Wade in the first place. (Yes, I voted for Nixon because I didn’t want Humphrey in there. How did that work out?)

 

[bbarrick8383]

In some states one vote means nothing, I feel pretty comfortable in the fact that I can vote for whomever I want, with the obvious exception.

I feel sorry for some folks though.

 

[ishii]

I do know that. I knew it last year when the same thing happened (same guy, remember) and the Republicans nominated McCain. I just do not accept the silliness that a vote for any one else is a vote for Obama. If that were true, then it would not bother Republicans that Democrats do all this voter registration and busing. No, a vote for Obama is in fact worse than no vote or a third party vote, for the Republicans. I just do not care for disingenuous rhetoric.

I have more of a better memory than to buy into the same lines every year.

How about this: a vote for a 3rd party is a vote to not directly and effectively oppose the very evil that we need to urgently stop. Sometimes you have to stop the bleeding first.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

I agree. A no-vote or a write-in or a vote for a third-party is one FEWER vote for the incumbent president. It gives him one FEWER vote for a political mandate (which Clinton never had incidentally.) It also sends the proper message to both corrupted major parties. To vote for the lesser of two evils is not the same thing as to vote for the lesser of all evils.

So if Obama were to win 46% to the GOP candidate’s 45% in the state of Ohio and that state’s electoral votes put Obama over 270 electoral votes delivering his re-election, then you could say that the 5% that went to the true believer 3rd party candidate helped Obama. If the anti-Obama vote is divided between GOP voters and 3rd party voters then it helps him win. No getting around that.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

In some states one vote means nothing, I feel pretty comfortable in the fact that I can vote for whomever I want, with the obvious exception.

I feel sorry for some folks though.

If I was in a contested swing state I would gladly vote for whoever the GOP candidate is because it would be helping stop Obama. You wouldn’t need to “feel sorry for me” because my vote has an impact on stopping Obama. I feel sorry for those in blue states like California or New York.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Really? How about Ross Perot getting enough votes to tilt the election? Even in Gore vs Bush, Ralph Nadar got enough votes to kink things for Gore (and thank heavens he did). Remember in the presidential election the electoral college makes things different than your local Senate race where it’s the popular vote. A few votes in one state or another can change the entire country’s results. Many credit Ohio alone in putting Bush in for a second term. Any of these big states with a large electoral college matter, and if the election is a squeaker I would hope and pray that you care enough about the country to consider voting for an imperfect candidate (in your opinion) instead of letting the election and the country go down in flames while the purists proudly say “I voted for the most ____ candidate” although he didn’t have a snowball’s chance.

Look at what Obama has done when he still gives a rat’s patooty about what we think. Imagine that horrible ideology writ large for another four years. God help us if that happens.

Lisa

Excellent points. Especially about what Obama would do in his 2nd term because he doesn’t need to be re-elected. This election might very well be close. The GOP candidate needs all the votes he can get - even from those whose votes are anti-Obama rather than pro-GOP.

Ishii

 

[bbarrick8383]

If I was in a contested swing state I would gladly vote for whoever the GOP candidate is because it would be helping stop Obama. You wouldn’t need to “feel sorry for me” because my vote has an impact on stopping Obama. I feel sorry for those in blue states like California or New York.

Ishii

Oh, but I still would.

See, even many of the democrats in my state are conservative leaning and can’t stand Obama. So I don’t have to put up with half a state of liberals and worry about them screwing things up for me.

 

[rlg94086]

I agree. A no-vote or a write-in or a vote for a third-party is one FEWER vote for the incumbent president. It gives him one FEWER vote for a political mandate (which Clinton never had incidentally.) It also sends the proper message to both corrupted major parties. To vote for the lesser of two evils is not the same thing as to vote for the lesser of all evils.

Oh. I didn’t realize you and pnewton would have voted for Obama but are looking to vote third party instead. In that case, I applaud you and pnewton for realizing your mistake in voting for Obama last election. It is a good decision.

 

[LisaA]

And why would I want to vote to reinforce the corruption, which gave us Roe vs Wade in the first place. (Yes, I voted for Nixon because I didn’t want Humphrey in there. How did that work out?)

Corruption? What on earth are you talking about?
Lisa

 

[ishii]

And why would I want to vote to reinforce the corruption, which gave us Roe vs Wade in the first place. (Yes, I voted for Nixon because I didn’t want Humphrey in there. How did that work out?)

Ultimately you are wrong in thinking that what Obama is doing to this country (and to the Catholic church) equates with what a Republican president did in 1969. How did Nixon work out? How could anyone have know what would happen with a Nixon admin vs. a Humphrey admin? I think it would be better if you focused more on 2012 and how to most effectively prevent Obama from getting a 2nd term.

Ishii

 

[pnewton]

I would hope and pray that you care enough about the country to consider voting for an imperfect candidate (in your opinion) instead of letting the election and the country go down in flames…

I care about both my country and my faith to do what I think best. The Catholic Church allows for one to vote based on electability, but this is not endorsed. If this country “goes down in flames” it will be with the Republican Party equally responsible for all its disasterous deficit spending and projection of military power, just as the Soviet Union did. I will not support the two party system. Ever. I may vote for the Republican Party this time, but again I am not bound to.

 

[pnewton]

How about this: a vote for a 3rd party is a vote to not directly and effectively oppose the very evil that we need to urgently stop. Sometimes you have to stop the bleeding first.

Ishii

Excellent. A well-worded and accurate opinion. This is the decision I must consider.

 

[LisaA]

I care about both my country and my faith to do what I think best. The Catholic Church allows for one to vote based on electability, but this is not endorsed. If this country “goes down in flames” it will be with the Republican Party equally responsible for all its disasterous deficit spending and projection of military power, just as the Soviet Union did. I will not support the two party system. Ever. I may vote for the Republican Party this time, but again I am not bound to.

You’re right you vote as you decide. However please do not even PRETEND to equate the Republican party’s responsibility for the current debacle. The two parties are NOT equally at fault. No Republicans voted for the stimulus that put us billions if not trillions in debt and what did it get us? Money for political cronies, unions, and ‘green energy.’ No Republicans voted for Obamacare, another stealth jam of favoritism, paybacks, and government control.

Take a look at the budget. The military and defense pale in comparison to the entitlement programs…entitlement programs the Democrats have expanded sadly with the help of some Republicans. How many more people are on food stamps now? Two years of unemployment insurance. Military cuts are on the table but don’t touch SNAP or welfare or social security or Medicare. When I hear people complain about the defense department (one of the few things actually authorized by the Constitution) as being the reason for our financial woes, I just ask that they get a few facts first.

Lisa