posted 05-04-2004 12:22 AM            

May 4, 2004

NewsWithViews.com

The day after it was published, my mailbox was chocked full of venomous emails reacting to my article, “Unhelpful Conservative Bush Bashing.” Many conservatives, obviously unwilling to accept the reality of what many see as a “lesser of two evils” choice, lashed out at me with unusual animosity.

Apparently, some conservatives don’t like being told that in the real world, we only have two choices: Bush or Kerry. However, barring an unforeseen death or some other extraordinary event, the next president of the United States will be George W. Bush or John Kerry.

Even given that reality, some argued in the emails I received that those conservatives who favor limited government would be better off under Kerry. Unfortunately, they made some valid points.

“A Republican Congress would never have allowed the kind of domestic spending increases George W. Bush pushed through using presidential arm twisting and appeals to party loyalty,” some wrote. Ouch!

“We’d be better off with a liberal like John Kerry as President, at least then the Republicans would put up a fight on budget issues,” others said. They are probably right about that.

“Kerry would not have gotten us bogged down in an illegal, empire building war in Iraq,” or “Some of Bush’s appointees to the federal bench and other insider positions are not conservatives,” others argued, pointing out that Bush is even considering his own Whitehouse counsel, a man of questionable conservative credentials, as his first Supreme Court nominee.

Even though the question may be a mixed one, it still remains to be answered: In the long run, does it matter who wins the next presidential election? Is there really a lesser of two evils? If so, with which of the two major candidates are we better off?

Before we get to that, it would be remiss of me to not mention that others who responded to my anti “Bush-bashing” column felt that they were not limited to two choices after all. Some proudly announced that they would be voting for a third party candidate as a “matter of principle.”

How do you argue with someone who genuinely believes that they should throw away their vote as a matter of principle? If people believe that it is not important that they help decide the outcome of the election by casting their vote for someone who actually has some chance of winning, then there is no logical argument that will persuade them to do otherwise.

To those patriotic souls I would say again, the choice we have may be between the lesser of two evils, and you may resent that fact, but that is still the choice we have. That is reality. Being angry about it or wanting it to be otherwise does not change the fact that that is the reality we face.

If there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two major candidates, then we are all throwing our votes away, whether we do so as a matter of principle, or not. Are we not? That is why we absolutely must decide whether there truly is a lesser of two evils between the two major candidates, and with which of them we would be better off.

Surprisingly, the answer to that question may depend on the issues that are important to you.

I think critics are right when they claim that federal spending would probably be less under Kerry, and that the Republican Congress would not have allowed Kerry to push through the budget increases and new social programs that Bush has been able to get passed.

However, there are several other issues to consider. Taxes. Immigration. The war in Iraq. The war on terrorism. Court appointees. Abortion. Gay marriage. Social Security reform. Gun control.

Some of those issues break in favor of Bush. Some break in favor of Kerry. Some are too close to call.

To make matters even more volatile, the positions of the candidates regarding some of these issue may change between now and November. Bush may become more conservative over the coming months. (If he doesn’t, the decision for practical conservatives this Fall may be a difficult one indeed.)

Also, there is the question of long-term strategy. If Bush wins in ‘04, will it make it more or less likely that a real conservative will be elected to the Presidency in 2008? If Ford had beaten Carter in 1976, would Reagan have been elected President in 1980? Probably not.

On the other hand, would another dose of unabashed liberalism cause a healthy backlash in this nation and feed a demand for a real conservative president, someone who will work earnestly to lower taxes and dismantle the bloated federal monstrosity that is choking the life out of this country?

I recently read an editorial by Don Devine, editor of American Conservative Union Foundation, who intelligently analyzed and compared Bush and Kerry on several issues. In his editorial, Mr. Devine addressed many of the questions conservatives have been pondering.

Rather than reinvent the wheel, I am going to refer you to Mr. Devine's Article.

As a result of reading Mr. Devine’s article, you might be surprised to learn that there are some major players on the national scene, who do not yet see the decision before us this Fall as a clear-cut one.

Finally, by way of reference, I have had occasion to observe and even work with Don Devine over the years. He is a good man. I have visited with him in a personal, one-on-one setting, and he was the one who introduced me at the Oregon Republican Party’s State Convention in 1998, when I was that party’s gubernatorial nominee. He is a genuine conservative; the kind who is more interested in doing what is right for the conservative movement and the country, than merely beating the party drum.

© 2004 Bill Sizemore - All Rights Reserved <

posted 05-04-2004 12:58 AM            

"Must a candidate for a political party put aside personal beliefs totally?
In the 1980 election cycle.
This argument was put out of sight by Reagan's 11th Commandment.

"Thou shalt not criticize a..(member or one's own party).."

Issues got put on the back burner in the name of "Party victory above all!"

This year Democrats are suggesting their side do the same as Republicans have done since 1980.

The differences on the right have simmered for almost a quarter century, and that pot is beginning to boil over:

The Alabama Republican Party went to court to fight for the right to exclude a conservative Christian pro-constitution candidate, from their primary.
______________________________________ http://www.votelaw.com/blog/archives/001572.html
>Violation of the 11th Commandment?
A complaint filed with the Alabama Republican Party contends that conservative Christian talk show host Kelly McGinley should not be on the GOP primary ballot for a state school board seat partly because she has criticized President Bush.
McGinley of Mobile says she has conservative views that differ from Bush's on certain issues and they should not disqualify her from being on the GOP ballot.
State GOP Chairman Marty Connors said Monday the party's candidate committee also will look into McGinley's support of the Constitution Party, a national political organization that has supported ousted Chief Justice Roy Moore.
Connors said McGinley has publicly stated that people should not vote for Bush, but instead should support the Constitution Party. --<
Complaint challenges GOP candidate for state school board (AP via Al.com) http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-6/108120444016560.xml
______________________________________

It has become a major controversy here in the deep south as self proclaimed Conservatives openly question whether their party has been taken over by non-conservatives.
As we at Chemtrail Central often call: "neo-cons"

>It is pretty much written in stone. Chief Justice Roy Moore is a threat to the New World Order and must be stopped. Even I, a little fish, was kicked off the ballot last week by the Republican Party. I was running against a RINO (Republican in Name Only) for the State School Board, and with the possibility of winning, I was illegally removed from the ballot.-Kelly McGinley <
http://newswithviews.com/McGinley/kelly5.htm

> why a marriage amendment? This seemingly innocuous constitutional amendment appeals to the good, patriotic American, but contains hidden dangers that would greatly harm our republic. I would like to know who is behind this and how they have convinced the majority of pro family organizations to back it?

This is so bad I hardly know where to begin.

First major problem about a "marriage amendment" is the lie that needs to be told to convince Christians that the problem with this sodomy attack on marriage is the U.S. Constitution. That the Constitution is not adequate to handle this problem, so it must be changed. This is terrible propaganda and they should not be able to get away with this, and the pro-family organizations should not allow them to.

The problem is not with the Constitution. Hello, the problem is those who put their hands on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. They either have not read it, or just refuse to go by it.
< http://newswithviews.com/McGinley/kelly1.htm

A strolg supporter of the US Constitution banned from the Republican Party?

Well, they tried.
Kelly McGinley won in court, and is now listed on the ballot for the Republican primary;
but the knives are being sharpened.
Why?

Here is the Christian Conservative radio show host with the "match" that ignited a firestorm:
http://newswithviews.com/McGinley/kelly.htm
>RIGHTEOUSNESS OR REPUBLICANISM

By Kelly McGinley
February 3, 2004
NewsWithViews.com

This country is in a constitutional and moral crisis and the blind loyalty to the Republican Party has a lot to do with the problem. We have got to stop supporting a candidate just because he or she has an "R" before his or her name. The Republican platform is great, but if the Republicans only give it lip service, what good is it? Truth is the Christians who blindly support Republicanism over righteousness have blood all over their hands.

It is the moral and biblical duty of Christians to choose representatives of great moral character who fear God. It is then our job to support them in prayer and stand with them when they are persecuted. And when they become weak and want to compromise we hold their feet to the fire. If their fruit is different than their talk then we need to fire them and elect a new Christian.

Noah Webster stated "When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers "just men who will rule in the fear of God." The preservation of a republican government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; If the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made not for the public good so much as for the selfish or local purposes; Corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a Republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws."

We must put the blame at the feet of Christians for the crisis we find ourselves in today. The Republican Party is not going save America. And our blind loyalty to it is destroying us. The party has been infiltrated with baby killers, sodomites, fornicators promoters, big government socialism, big spending money grubbers, anti gun Marxists just to name a few. This blind loyalty has given the politician a blank check to do what ever he wants. He knows that no one will know or really care because it is all about winning.

To most Christians the elections are just about winning, not truth and righteousness. They have no idea how the candidate stands on the issues. Some are naive enough to think that because they are Republicans that they stand on the Republican platform. There is hardly a Republican out there that will write legislation to end the genocide of Americans let alone to monitor the industry. Most every Republican I have interviewed believes in civil unions with benefits using your money. Not a one I know has tried to impeach a tyrannical judge let alone reign in his jurisdiction, as stated in Article III section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Matter of fact you can hardly tell the difference between a Democrat or a Republican, except the Bush administration has spent 25% more than the Clinton administration. Mr. Francis, chairman of the Republican Unity Coalition, (a homosexual lobby group) said in an interview with the New York Times, "There is not an anti-gay bone in his body". Talking about the President's body. In an article in Newsweek, December 29, 2003, President Bush was quoted as saying to the Muslim leader "Dr. al-Rubaie, I want you to convey this message to Mr. Sistani. Tell him that I pray to the same god he prays to…Tell Sistani I have nothing but praise for your religion." With all the bad Christian fruit Bush has displayed for the last 3 years, Christians still claim he is a Christian and a great president.

Both parties are taking us to a New World Order at mach speed while the see no evil, hear no evil Christians do nothing. This Blind Loyalty has gone to such an extreme that if anyone mentions something negative about a Republican politician, the Christians attack the messenger. They have forgotten that God says to stand for righteousness not Republicanism. Or maybe their preachers have never bothered to mention it.

If Christians are not salt and light, they are good for nothing. Every Christian will give an account on how he governed in this constitutional republic. What will the Lord Jesus Christ say, "Well done my good and faithful servant" or "their blood will I require at your hands"?

It is well past time to be loyal to Christ instead of the Republican Party. Time to stand for righteousness. It is time for a third party; the Constitution Party is the one I have in mind. Visit their website at www.constitutionparty.com. Check out their party platform and their candidates and you will see a big difference. Maybe if we practice tough love the Republican Party would repent and come back to its platform. But if not, duty is duty. Let righteousness ring!

© 2004 Kelly McGinley - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

Please Suppurt Us With Your Donation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kelly McGinley is a christian radio talk show host. Her show is called Re-Taking America heard in Alabama and Florida and can also be heard 24/7 on the internet at www.retakingamerica.com. Her show is about cultural, political and world events through a biblical world view. Kelly can be contacted at retakingamerica@aol.com
<

(Disclaimer- because I am a registered Republican, this is current events locally* for me.
*Florida panhandle, Alabama and Mississippi/Gulf Coast)
>< http://www.votelaw.com/blog/archives/001572.html
>Violation of the 11th Commandment?
A complaint filed with the Alabama Republican Party contends that conservative Christian talk show host Kelly McGinley should not be on the GOP primary ballot for a state school board seat partly because she has criticized President Bush.
McGinley of Mobile says she has conservative views that differ from Bush's on certain issues and they should not disqualify her from being on the GOP ballot.
State GOP Chairman Marty Connors said Monday the party's candidate committee also will look into McGinley's support of the Constitution Party, a national political organization that has supported ousted Chief Justice Roy Moore.
Connors said McGinley has publicly stated that people should not vote for Bush, but instead should support the Constitution Party. --<
Complaint challenges GOP candidate for state school board (AP via Al.com) http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-6/108120444016560.xml

Reagan's 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not criticize a fellow Republican."
(Publicly quoted version)
Is this another way of saying? "Thou shalt put party loyalty above principles"
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=001406;p=0
>A conservative Christian talk show host filed a lawsuit Monday against the Alabama Republican Party, saying she was illegally disqualified from the GOP ballot for a state school board seat.

The party disqualified Kelly McGinley last week from running for the school board seat from south Alabama, citing her support for the Constitution Party.<
***
>Actually she is a "party" girl, she has been a lifelong Republican, has chaired many Republican campaigns in the state of Alabama, and has donated money to the GOP. She has spoken out against some of Bush's liberal policies recently and said that if the Republican party continues in the direction it is heading that it may be time for a third-party, and the Constitution party may be that party.

The GOP leadership didn't like her speaking out against the Republican party's shift to the left so they are blacklisting her.<
***
>MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) -- A judge ordered the Alabama Republican Party to reinstate a Christian radio talk show host on the June 1 primary ballot Tuesday, saying the party's rules regarding candidate loyalty were too vague.<
http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-7/108310464871150.xml
source: http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=001406;p=0
><

"I am a Christian first before a republican. My allegiance is to the Lord Jesus Christ not the republican party.
I am committed to the platform of the Rep. party and will actively expose the RINO's.
I will not check my brain, my freedom of speech, or my Christian principles at the door of the big tent of the Rep. party."-Kelly McGinley

"My principles come before my party affiliation. Would to goodness that this were true of everyone."-Mark Owsley
"...we must make decisions not based on Party labels, but principles."- Mark Owsley
"This country and the values upon which it was founded are more important than party loyalty.
In short, don't pee down my back and tell me its raining.
You say none of us can expect to serve two masters, quoting scripture.
I don't consider any political party my master, thank goodness."-Mark Owsley
"There have been more unprincipled Republicans exposed in the last two years than ever before in Alabama history.
It is refreshing to see one or two with principles,
even if they aren't the Republican equivalent of yellow-dogs."-Mark Owsley http://curbaea.com/

**************************************
Not intended to bash either side, but to encourage discussion about:
"What are the sides these days?

America has never had more of a "My way or the highway" partisanship;
with the possible exception of the Civil War.
_____________________________________________

Thesis: Compromise for the common good.
Antithesis: All or nothing. (My way or the highway?)
_____________________________________________
"...a lot of folks who consider themselves Democrats back Ralph Nader because they think that party is too conservative. Conversely, a lot of folks who think the Republican Party gets too mealy-mouthed and liberal also support the Constitution Party, formerly the US Taxpayers' Party."

_____________________________________________
5 entries found for moderate.
To select an entry, click on it.
moderate[1,adjective]moderate[2,verb]moderate[3,noun]moderate breezemoderate gale

posted 05-04-2004 09:42 PM            

One point. Personally, I do not believe in "Evil vs Good". I see it as "logical vs irrational" or "stupid vs intelligent". In that case, Bush vs Kerry is not the lesser of "two evils" , but the more logical choice, since it is illogical to think Russo or Nader stands a chance. It is also rational/logical to think that 4 more years of Bush will be disastrous. I do see the logic in Mech's POV, but I disagree somewhat that there is NO difference between the two.