Filed under: Quotes and Articles
By Gary DeMar
Trying to get elected as a third party candidate in American politics
is extremely difficult if not impossible since the electing process
is not by majority vote. Ballot access is also an obstacle since
third parties have to meet additional criteria not required of
Republicans and Democrats. Reform Party candidate Ross Perot was able
to get on the ballot in all 50 states in 1992 as was Pat Buchanan in
1996. Perot was a nationally known figure who had lots of money to
pour into the process. The Reform Party affected both elections but
did nothing to advance it as a genuine third party player. While
Perot received nearly 20 percent of the popular vote in 1992, he did
not receive a single electoral vote. Trying to change America’s
political system by running a third-party candidacy is a pipe dream.
A number of Christians are voting for third-party candidates for
“conscience sake.” Let’s look at the logic of this in the choice of
candidates. While Ron Paul is not running as a third-party candidate,
people will still vote for him as a write-in. At least Paul has an
electoral track record. He has represented Texas districts in the
U.S. House of Representatives since 1976. He ran and won political
offices on the local level before he ran for president in 1988 as a
Libertarian (while still a Republican) and as a Republican in 2008.
He saw the reality of working within the system because he understood
the inherent obstacles of a third party.
Bob Barr, like Paul, was a member of the U.S. House of
Representatives, representing the 7th District in Georgia. He lost to
Paul Coverdale in the 1992 Republican run-off for Senate, but went on
to win the 7th District House seat in 1994 against incumbent Buddy
Darden (Dem.) who had won it from when Congressman Larry McDonald had
lost his life when Korean Air Flight 007 was shot down by the Soviet
Union on September 1, 1983. Barr later lost his House seat in the
primary to John Linder. I cannot understand how a person who was not
being able to win state-wide and district-wide qualifies him to run
for president.
Many Christians are pushing Chuck Baldwin and the Constitution Party.
Baldwin doesn’t have a chance, and he knows it. The system is against
him. Moreover, he doesn’t have any electoral experience. The same
goes for Alan Keyes who has no business running for president when he
couldn’t win a Senate seat in Maryland in 1988 and 1992 and couldn’t
beat Barack Obama in a Senate race in Illinois in 2004. At least Ron
Paul and Bob Barr have won some elections and have a legislative
track record.
I can’t see how anyone who has not won some political office
somewhere has any business running for president no matter how right
they might be on the positions.
So what’s to be done? At this point in time, we are stuck with a
two-party system. Deal with it. If radical leftists have been able to
take over the Democrat Party and a mini-Republican Revolution was
started by Reagan in 1980 and revived congressionally in 1994 and
1996, I can’t understand why we would not put our efforts into taking
over one of the major parties. If we can’t do this, then what makes
us think we can create a competing third party or send up a solo
candidate for president and get him elected?
The old adage that you can’t change just one thing applies here.
First, a two to six-year election process needs to begin now to
capture the Senate and the House by picking the most vulnerable
political party. Second, begin to recruit and groom candidates who
will run as reform candidates on a unified competing political
platform within one of the political parties. It would help to find
candidates who have political experience and some name recognition.
Third, bloggers and websites should be started immediately to lay out
the specifics of the new platform. Use the web to get around the
political gatekeepers. Fourth, build a giant email list of donors,
bloggers, information gatherers, and propagators of the
party-within-the-party takeover movement. Fifth, keep the kooks from
taking over the process. Sixth, the energy behind the effort will
encourage other candidates to jump on board. We might even get a good
presidential candidate out of the process.
Will the malcontents follow this strategy? Probably not. They will
bellyache about how bad the candidates and the two-party system are
then tell those who don’t vote for one of their miracle candidates
that they are not voting out of principle.
The Republicans and Democrats are in power because they’ve worked at
it. If you want to revamp the political system, it’s going to take a
lot of work and very few miracles. Are you up to the task?
http://www.americanvision.org/blog/?p=185
18 Comments so far
Leave a comment
I heartily disagree with Gary Demar.
While on one hand DeMar advocates “a lot of work and very few miracles” to “revamp the political system”, he denounces those who would vote for a Bobb Barr or Chuck Baldwin because he “doesn’t have a chance, and he knows it”. Instead he tells us to “deal with it”.
I don’t know what you call that, but in my book of logic that’s called contradiction. Look at what he’s saying. He says “The Republicans and Democrats are in power because they’ve worked at
it”. But then he turns around and argues that would-be 3rd party voters should not at creating something new. Hello?
Do a history lesson here and essentially he’s saying that Abraham Lincoln should never have run for President. Why? Because Abraham ran as a 3rd party candidate.
In the mind of Paul, DeMar would prefer to deny the election of one of America’s patriots. That will simply not do.
Comment by Paul Hastings October 10, 2008 @ 12:37 pmI understand where you’re coming from, Paul, but isn’t hoping for Barr or Baldwin to win – or even voting for them – in actuality hoping for a miracle? If not, then it’s just throwing away your vote. The work Mr. DeMar is referring to isn’t voting third party during the presidential election, it’s working to reclaim the Republican party or build up a new party from the ground up.
To do it from the ground up is a lot of work at winning credibility and viability for the party, and hoping for a third-party victory in the current state of things is truly hoping for a miracle. True, Lincoln was a third-party candidate, but there were extreme, extenuating circumstances that made his candidacy viable – such as the threat of Civil war. Mr. DeMar is not saying that things have always been the way they are now.
I think that one thing we forget here is that the law of reaping and sowing holds for nations as well as for individuals. Our nation would never have reached this point if Christians had fulfilled their civic duties. The Scriptures say that God will not be mocked, that whatever we sow we will also reap. The Christians of this nation have sown a big harvest, and to hope for a third-party victory at the presidential level at this point is praying for crop failure and for a harvest without the trouble of plowing, planting, and watering.
Remember, God doesn’t get in a hurry about things like we do. When He wanted to deliver Israel from bondage to the Philistines, He didn’t send an angel to do it now. Rather He told Sampson’s parents that He would send them a son to deliver them when he grew up. If we want to redeem our nation, we will have to play by the laws God has set in motion – like the law of the harvest – instead of asking God to make an exception in our case.
Comment by Hannah October 10, 2008 @ 1:30 pmExactly, as you stated it takes work and it takes time. Time that would be better spent building up a new 3rd party that represents our ideals from the start, rather than spending time trying to reform a party that has already failed once.
As you stated “…we will have to play by the laws God has set in motion – like the law of the harvest – instead of asking God to make an exception in our case.” I couldn’t agree more. Yet believing that the Republican party will reform but then voting for the candidates they present to us is not sending them a message that we’re serious about reform.
Which speaks louder, words or actions? We can talk about how the Republican party needs to choose better candidates. We can protest and pick at their policies. We can say whatever rhetoric we want. But if in the end we still vote for McCain, then that tells the Republican party that they don’t need to reform because they still got our vote with the candidate they chose. You see, our walk didn’t match our talk.
In fact, expecting the GOP to change even though we give them what they want is like “asking God to make an exception in our case.”
One last thing, it’s very true that Lincoln was elected during a time of great distress. But what does the world look like today? Our economy is actively failing, our government owes over 10 trillion dollars in debt, the feds have a deficit of half a trillion dollars every year, Iran is about to build a nuclear bomb, and I haven’t even mentioned Social Security or Medicare. Wouldn’t this count as a time of distress?
I’m not saying a 3rd party will win this year’s election, in fact that’s extremely improbable. But why not 4 or 8 years from now? In addition, if a large enough percentage of evangelicals act by not voting for the Republican nominee (e.g. vote for Barr or Baldwin) isn’t there a greater probability that the GOP will reform?
Comment by Paul Hastings October 11, 2008 @ 12:23 amLet me answer the last point first. True, our nation is in a time of distress. But unless there is a widespread threat of civil war, then I would say the distress is probably not going to motivate folks in general to vote third party. You admit that yourself by calling the likelihood of a third party victory “extremely improbable”.
Now, for your first point: you seem to think that the “work” I’m referring to is simply voting. It’s not that simple. Think about it. What we’re advocating is not just hollering for reform until we’re hoarse. We’re talking about taking over the party and returning it to the conservative principles that it was founded on. Sort of a third party campaign within the existing machine, if you will.
A vote for John McCain this year is not advancing the conservative cause in and of itself; it’s just holding things in limbo while we work on our choices next time around. We’re going to have to get involved more than simply voting on election day. We’re going to have to run for office, and those who don’t need to run need to dig deep in their pockets to support them, work long and hard to campaign for them and yes, vote for them. This battle takes place in the primaries, not the general election.
If you have a new brand of Republicans finally saying the things that conservatives all across the country are starved to hear, who are willing to stand for principle whatever the cost, and who have a genuine, friendly appeal (note: not Ron Paul – I’m sure he’s a very friendly gentleman but he didn’t communicate that to the nation), then you will indeed sent the party establishment scrambling.
This is actually being done on a small scale in the Democratic party, of all places. Democrats who are more conservative than many Republicans are running for office, and they are getting elected. We have one such Democrat challenging Lindsey Graham here in SC this year. If it can be done in that party, surely it can be done in the GOP.
Sarah Palin is a good example of this. She got in office to fix things up, and the “good old boys”, the establishment, were out to take her out. In fact, that was one place where Dems and Reps were willing to work together – to destroy her. That’s what this whole Troopergate “scandal” is all about. She won, and if more people like her started running, they would get elected, and you would send shock waves through the establishment GOP.
Comment by Hannah October 11, 2008 @ 3:26 pmYou’ve got some great points. And actually you and I probably agree on more things than we disagree. I completely see eye to eye with you on needing to do more than just vote (in fact PA is all about getting students involved in the political system). Likewise, I agree with many of the factual realities that you stated above, but I don’t agree with your conclusion.
1. People will talk about taking over the Republican Party and returning it to the conservative principles that it was founded on. But on that same note, why not take over the Democratic Party and return it to the conservative values it was founded upon?
2. Why should serious conservatives choose to change the Republican Party? Because of it’s original roots? Actually, based on their original historical roots the Democratic Party stood for more conservative values than the Republican Party did.
3. Should we choose the Republicans because they were the more recent Party to become liberalized? Then scientifically speaking, if an object went from “position A” to “position B” that wouldn’t occur randomly. It’s because there’s a progenitor. The Republican party didn’t randomly become liberalized. There is an active liberal agenda within members of the Republican Party. We shouldn’t be afraid to fight against it, but I believe our time would be better spent if we; “A” left the GOP and began afresh, or “B” GOP saw that liberal Republicans wouldn’t get our votes.
4. Should we choose the Republicans since it’ll be easier because there are more conservative Republicans than conservative Democrats? But by that logic, it would actually be easier to create a 3rd party that represented our ideals from ground zero, rather than trying to reform a party that may not reform in the end.
5. A vote for John McCain is not a vote to hold “things in limbo while we work on our choices next time around”. A vote for John McCain is a vote for liberalized politics. Restricting free speech is not, and never will be a conservative value, neither are government bail-outs, and neither will supporting embryonic stem-cell research.
6. Think about that, we’re at the point where conservative are ready to vote for a man who actively supports embryonic stem-cell research. No way you cut it, A vote for John McCain is a vote for murder of innocent life. Flat out.
7. As I stated before, if conservatives vote for John McCain, that tells the GOP that the candidate they chose therefore represented the Republican party… including conservatives. Why? Because, the conservatives voted for him. Again, which speaks louder, words or actions?
But hey, keep up the discussion, I’m enjoying this a lot. Just wish that more people would chime in. ;D
Comment by Paul Hastings October 11, 2008 @ 7:41 pmI agree that we probably do agree on most things. Let me answer these things in order.
1. The reason to try to take over the GOP as versus the Dems is because each party has a platform of standards that everyone associated with that platform, more or less, accepts. Where are most of the Christian conservatives? And where are the Obamas, Clintons, and Kennedys? The GOP is much closer to where it ought to be than the Democratic party, and would therefore be the easier and more logical choice. The Dems have united on their ideology: there is still much to be commended in the GOP platform. We just need to stop the downhill slide and haul it back up the slope. The Dems are already entrenched in the valley.
2. I don’t know much about the origins of the Democratic party, but I do know how the GOP started, and it sounds pretty conservative to me. If you’re referring to the Civil war, I do not accept that argument. But that’s a discussion for another day.
3. Here’s where you and I will have to agree to disagree – unless you want to come over to the correct point of view.
In the first place, your scientific evaluation does not factor in the Law of Intrapy – that things go from good to bad automatically unless something holds it in check. In this case it was the lack of involvement on the part of the Christians. There are two reasons why I believe that it would be faster to take over the Republican party:
a. the party holds credibility (I don’t mean respect, I mean credibility as a party) with the American people. Right now, no one takes third parties seriously. That could change, but it would take time. If we work on the GOP, that time would be saved, and some people will be voting Republican all along.
b. there is a strong base of Christian support within the Republican party. This is the old argument of Puritan vs. Separatist. Most Christians are Puritans in ideology (not in practice – that’s what needs to change) rather than Separatist right now. That’s just where they are. So if you try to start a third party, you have two uphill battles to face, namely convincing the public that you are a viable option, and convincing the Christians that it’s time to give up on the GOP.
All that takes time, and that brings me to the fifth point.
5. I am aware that John McCain is not what we would want, and that we will continue a downhill slide somewhat. I am speaking in comparison to Obama – who will call up the Dems from the valley and push us down the hill as fast as they can. Like it or no, one or the other will be President, and it’s up to us how fast we want to see our nation decline. If it goes slower we have more of a chance to rescue it.
6. A vote for McCain is not an endorsement of McCain. It’s a simple choice. If your mother offers you a choice between a big plate of steamed asparagus or a big plate of steamed carrots, are you saying that you would love to have carrots every day if you choose them? No, you’re just saying that you would rather have them than asparagus. You don’t use this kind of logic in any other area of life.
7. It is very unfortunate that McCain won the primary, because THAT is where Conservatives decide who they want to represent them. Whether he wins or not, he was the choice of enough conservatives to give him the nomination. The message has already been sent to the Republican party. Now the choice is whether we want him to represent us, or the Dems’ choice. I know what I would rather.
In conclusion, let me say that what you suggest might would work – I’m not really arguing that. The question is how much time would it take, and would it be too late for our country by the time your third party really got the ball rolling. You and I both agree that for your strategy to work, a lot of Dems would have to win the election by default before the Republicans got the message, or the third party became a viable option. By the way, why do we want to send the GOP a message if it’s time to abandon ship anyway?
The time we take trying to build up a third party is time when liberal justices will be appointed to the courts, terrible laws and possibly amendments will be passed, the agenda of Socialism being pressed more and more, and goodness knows what our foreign relations will be like. I ask you, do you really think it wise to choose a strategy that brings this amount of risk with it?
This is a fun discussion, and I’m enjoying it too. I hope we’ll be seeing some other opinions before this is over!
Comment by Hannah October 11, 2008 @ 8:25 pmWell, I want to make a somewhat separate point, but let me just correct a couple things:
1) Since we’re talking about justices, let me remind you who was one of the Senators who voted for Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer? Ummm… yeah… he did. Are you sure you trust him with appointments?
2) Ummm… ENTROPY isn’t just something that happens. Natural processes cause entropy. Guess who’s causing entropy in the GOP? (for answer, reference above question)
Now you want to make him president. :sigh:
3) Finally, Jefferson started the Democratic party. Pretty conservative. And… no… Republicans where outright nationalistic radicals at the time of the Civil war. Even if you don’t want to read about the Real Lincoln, you’ve gotta recognize that was the case during reconstruction.
Alright leme make two of my own points:
1) I agree with DeMar when if the ultimate goal of politics is getting elected. You have to work within the system for that.
2) However, I do not look at elections as an end. I look at them as tools of reform. The end is to hold government accountable to the standards of limited government. (Of politics, I specifically mean. That end has other ends which we won’t get into, btw.) So going third party is a TOOL to bring politicians back into line. If otherwise GOPers vote 3rd party, Republicans will be forced into reform. I think it’s time we had a different mindset when it comes to the GOP:
This attitude should start NOW! Going third party may be no way to get elected, but it is a way to bring the party back into line. That’s what I’m going for.
I’ve posted a bunch about this issue on my blog so let me just end with a quote from WND editor Joseph Farah:
Blessings,
Comment by Brian October 11, 2008 @ 10:32 pm> Brian
Unique that you state that Lincoln was a third-party candidate. Actually, his party (Republican) was formed by members of many different parties including many of the former major party who’s members were called “Whigs”. Though going out of existence, the Whig party was a major party with a lot of presidential history (e.g. William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore). The Republican party wasn’t some brand new radical third party. It had a shot at the the presidency once before and it’s candidate carried eleven states (sounds pretty major to me).
It was the split between the Northern Democrats and the Southern Democrats, each nominating its own presidential candidate, which resulted in Lincoln winning the presidency. So in reality, it was because of a third-party splitting the vote that Lincoln was elected.
That’s what third parties do they split votes and help the opposition to win. A great example is Teddy Roosevelt. Did you know that Theodore Roosevelt tried to regain the presidency when Taft was running for re-election? He lost in the primaries and claimed that Taft had stolen the primary (does a lot of unhappiness about the primary results sound familiar?). He organized the party of Progressive Republicans and ran as a third-party candidate. The result was splitting the ticket and allowing Woodrow Wilson to be elected as the democratic president. Better yet is the example of Ross Perot. He helped bring in eight years of Clinton!
Comment by Trent Williams October 14, 2008 @ 12:45 pmHey, fellows, this is fun and let’s don’t stop. I’m pretty busy right now, but I’ll be back on to answer tomorrow. I really appreciate you all taking the time to articulate your opinions.
Comment by Hannah October 14, 2008 @ 1:29 pmIn the first place, Brian, glad you joined the discussion! Let me answer your points in order.
1. Yes, John McCain did vote for those nominees, but let’s let him defend himself on this one:
“I have my own standards of judicial ability, experience, philosophy, and temperament. And Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito meet those standards in every respect. They would serve as the model for my own nominees if that responsibility falls to me. And yet when President Bill Clinton nominated Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg to serve on the high court, I voted for their confirmation, as did all but a few of my fellow Republicans. Why? For the simple reason that the nominees were qualified, and it would have been petty, and partisan, and disingenuous to insist otherwise. Those nominees represented the considered judgment of the president of the United States. And under our Constitution, it is the president’s call to make.”
It sounds to me like he really understands the balance of power in this area, and respects the original intent of the Founders, although some may disagree that that was sufficient reason to vote for those nominees.
Even if that weren’t the case, you have to admit that an election is all about electing someone, not making a statement. Someone is going to be appointing these justices, and it’s not going to be a third party candidate. Are you anticipating liking Obama’s nominees better than McCain’s?
2. Now, about the law of Entropy (sorry, I misspelled that word in my previous comment), I don’t think the problem is the elected officials. I think the problem is the folks who put them there. Remember, the Founders’ view was that the people would get the kind of leaders they deserved. To keep the party in line requires constant vigilance and work on the part of the Christians, and our lack of proper involvement is what has brought us to this point.
3. Now, about the Parties’ history: we may disagree on their ideology at their inception, but how they started is really not pertinent to this discussion. What matters is where they are and what they stand for now.
I understand where you’re coming from in your view of elections, but the reason winning is all-important is because the one who wins is the one who will be governing our nation. You most certainly can make a statement with your vote, if you are more concerned about that than you are about making a difference.
When people get mad at Republicans, they go Democratic. When conservative Democrats run against moderate Republicans, they often win. Why? Because what the individual candidate stands for is important. Third parties are not an option for most of Americans. Again, I understand your point, but the fact is that one of these men will be our president, and if everyone goes third party that will effectually elect Obama. By the time he leaves office, will our nation be too far gone to recover? I think he has the potential to do untold damage to our land, and that the damage we will be left with will not be worth the “statement” we made with our vote.
P.S. Thanks for the history lesson, Trent! That was very well put, and right on the target.
Comment by Hannah October 15, 2008 @ 2:55 pmReply to Origin of Republican Party Comment:
I know this is somewhat off topic…
but I would like to go back and comment on the Republicans in the Reconstruction statement.
Who was in control during most of the Reconstruction? Lincoln was dead.
The guys calling the shots were Radical Republicans (notice the term Radical: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Republican_(USA) ) The reason Andrew Johnson was chosen for Vice President is because he agreed with Lincoln on his reconstruction plans. Unfortunately, Lincoln was assassinated. Andrew Johnson tried to carry out Lincoln’s plans, but, because Radical Republicans wanted to punish the south, the plans were not followed (also Andrew Johnson was a Democrat).
Now let’s try to get back on track (instead of arguing about the “Real Lincoln” and who “should have” won the Civil War).
Comment by Trent Williams October 15, 2008 @ 3:39 pmProtest Voting (voting for a third-party candidate) Logic:
Did Ross Perot – third-party candidate – reform the Republican Party? Not really. The message that was heard was a “why-did-you-mess everything-up-by-voting-for-him” one – a message of stupidity. What he did accomplish was to help bring us eight years of Clinton. Wow! That sounds like what we should do! Let’s support a third-party candidate! Let’s get Obama for our president! Let’s get the Legislative and Executive branch to both work together (both would be controlled by democrats) so they are practically unstoppable!
Some have claimed that this will bring us a win the next election or maybe that it will bring a win in 2016. First this isn’t a sure thing at all. What’s to say Hillary doesn’t take it in 2012 and then get re-elected?
Also, protest vote advocates tell us that there is no way conceivable that a Republican can win after McCain has a term (or two). My response is two words: Sarah Palin (or better yet: Condoleezza Rice). Either way a candidate that has huge chances of winning would represent us that year, so don’t get your hearts set on a Democrat winning in 2012, 2016 or any other year.
In Conclusion…
Let’s block in this election with McCain. Then we can bring in somebody that is truly conservative (nobody is going to believe that McCain is a conservative if he does all the “evil” things he is projected – by protest vote advocates – to do). Voting for McCain is better than Obama (and if conservatives do this he will actually think about making them happy) he’s center, not hard left, that’s a big difference (actually it’s a huge difference).
This election is not a time to gamble. Vote McCain, if McCain departs from what he is saying he will do, smash him in the 2012 primaries. You set up Palin (and a “Republican Reformation”) for a win with McCain winning this election, and you block Obama – what’s better than that?
Comment by Trent Williams October 15, 2008 @ 3:44 pmThe election is not a time to gamble… yet it’s a time to vote for a miserable candidate on the presumption that Sarah or Condoleeza will take his place?
The Republicans were founded in 1854, by 1860 they had a President. That’s in just 6 years. But wait, Lincoln didn’t run as a Republican in 1864, he ran underneath the banner of the National Union Party, yet another “3rd party”, and he won again.
Hmm… so we’re saying that Lincoln got elected twice by 2 different “3rd parties”? In a word… yes.
Let me turn the question asked in the comment above, “Did Abraham Lincoln – third-party candidate – reform the Whig Party?” No, he didn’t. Instead something brand-new was formed which is still here today.
As for McCain’s statement as to why he supported Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg because, “For the simple reason that the nominees were qualified”. Oh really? So since when does being an active champion of murdering unborn babies qualify you?
Finally, the argument that conservative Democrats often get elected in favor of Republicans contradicts the purpose for which the argument is being used. Why are they elected? As the proponent stated a few comments above, “Because what the individual candidate stands for is important.” Exactly, in fact this argument supports the validity of 3rd party candidates. “Because what the individual candidate stands for is important.”
Comment by Paul Hastings October 16, 2008 @ 9:08 am1. Advocates of the third-party voting haven’t yet admitted that John McCain has any good points. What they are essentially saying is that McCain is evil and unredeemable, and that, in and of itself, is horrendous. (See here for differences between the two candidates: http://wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp? )
2. The fact is that the result of the protest vote is an Obama administration.
Conclusion:
So, you are supporting a candidate that supports abortion, limiting gun rights, gay pride and a host of other messed up things. It is always better to pick a wet noodle (supposedly what McCain is) then a pint of poison (Obama). What are you accomplishing by your vote? The answer is this: four, or eight, years of Sen. Barrack Obama, four, or more, years of pro-abortion judge selections and up to eight years of the most liberal member of the Senate in the highest position in the United States of America!
Comment by Trent Williams October 16, 2008 @ 3:00 pmAlright, I don’t have much time, especially to address the major historical flaws I’ve seen. (Sorry people, you really need to do your research on “radical” Republicans of the reconstruction. “radical” republican was at the time an oxymoron.) Ross Perot’s true impact. Or, for that matter, if there is any real difference in McCain’s and Obama’s judicial philosophy. So let me narrow it down to the major disagreement I see:
That’s the major problem here. You believe is this (pardon me) short-sighted view of election. Putting someone in there! I, on the other hand, look at an election as a tool to enact governmental change. (not the Obama type) Sometimes not electing someone will promote more change than getting someone in who’s only so-so.
Secondly, I want everyone to put this into perspective. Governments, presidents, and senators don’t control society. And presidents don’t control government. God rules everything, and we (thank God) have a system of checks and balances. Throughout this whole process, we need to pursue God, not men.
Praying for the election (and more importantly the fate of this nation),
Comment by Brian October 24, 2008 @ 10:19 am> Brian
I understand your point, Brian, and I think it’s excellent. Enacting real change, using elections as tools, I’m with you all the way on that. My question is do we have to go through eight years of Obama to change it around? The answer is no.
http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/g/e014ec7f-fcff-409b-a55a-0e2f0be2cdd8
We don’t have to go through those eight years of Obama to have change. We can have change now, if we work for it. What I’m saying is, we can have our cake and eat it too.
Comment by Trent Williams October 25, 2008 @ 3:11 pmSorry to back to kind of late on this. I had a bunch of school work that backed up.
The article that’s quoted has a fatal flaw. McCain is not Reagan. McCain’s as liberal on public-policy issues as all get out. McCain is not Reagan. McCain is not a conservative. McCain kills babies. McCain is not worthy of our vote.
Comment by Paul Hastings October 29, 2008 @ 1:56 amI think everyone on this forum agrees that McCain is not the ideal candidate. He supports embryonic stem cell research and has voted for some liberal US Supreme Court appointees, among other things. (Let me point out that since embryonic stem cell research is already occurring, his support of it does not mean a new atrocity would be introduced, but that a current one would be perpetuated.) But McCain did win the primary over more conservative candidates who failed to garner the necessary support. So, the question is what do we do now.
Change has become the catch phrase for this election cycle. There are competing views on what kind of change is needed. The Republican Party has begun to drift from some of the conservative issues it used to champion. Voting for a third party candidate might make it sit up and take notice. If, though, Christians choose to go this route, they have to live with the consequences. With the conservative vote split between McCain and third party candidates, Obama will probably get into office.
Would we as a nation be better off with Obama or McCain? Without a doubt, we would be better off with McCain. I am not just spouting party rhetoric. I struggled for months over whether I could vote for McCain. I finally reached the conclusion that, while the conservative cause will not advance much, if at all, under McCain, it will suffer greatly under Obama. One of the immediate goals Obama has once in office is to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Obama plans to guarantee to every American accessible, affordable health coverage through private and public means. He wants to help states move towards voluntary, universal preschool and to assist their efforts with educating “zero-to-five”. He wants to pass the Employee Nondiscrimination Act which would prevent employers from refusing to hire a homosexual based on religious convictions. He wants to expand Hate Crimes legislation. This is just the tip of the ice burg.
There is another way to make the Republican Party sit up and take notice: involvement. I have noticed that elected officials are more receptive to those who supported them than those who opposed them. I suspect that, should McCain lose, those who voted third party will not be high on the Republican leadership’s list of advisors for improving the Party.
Now, more than ever before, our nation needs prayer. Only God can get our nation back on track. He works, though, in part, through Christians.
Comment by Sarah November 1, 2008 @ 12:12 am