E!! The True Conservative Story™

RFC Radio co-founder and station manager Andrew Riley just got off the phone with Minuteman Civil Defense Corps founder Chris Simcox - who confirmed the veracity of Ben Smith’s story on Politico:  he is indeed going to be running against McCain in 2010.

(We at RFC have a personal interest in this because Simcox is a station partner and friend ~ and has a talk show that airs with us.)

Chris says he’ll be on Fox News to talk about this tomorrow.  And that his son will be wearing an RFC Radio t-shirt.

I have never been a big fan of McCain and very happily endorse Chris Simcox who is a True Conservative.  I know a lot of Arizona citizens and bloggers who will do the same.

Obama visits the White House while the echoes of McCain’s can’t-say-that (or That either) (and definitely not THAT!) protestulations and admonishments still ring in our heads. 

This makes it hard to understand why The Maverick has been so quiet on the snarkfest re: Palin.

Says a new blog pal:  Your silence, sir, is deafening!

Lisa Schiffren has a great post on The Corner.  She posits that McCain deliberately held back in the campaign.  Here’s part of it:

…some McCain aides had felt for a while that their candidate had had a deep reluctance to impede the election of the nation’s first African American president. That he had, perhaps, pulled punches and failed to strike as hard as necessary to win this thing, for that greater good. [This] was infuriating, since more depended on the election than changing the race dynamic — which, it must be said, has been changed for some time, and did not require this particular symbol to validate it. To be sure, McCain must have known that his campaign was losing — and did not want to swing blindly. And maybe he didn’t like being called “erratic,” “desperate”, and a “racist” every time the inconvenient facts of Barack Obama’s short past came up for discussion.

But all Republicans who watched their candidate these past few months, must have been struck, as I have been, by the sense that he was holding back. I wondered, too often, how it could be that no one at the campaign could frame and muster the arguments that were clear to all conservative writers here and at the other publications and blogs that share our view. When the arguments were made, they were too little, too late, and garbled enough to drain their force. The campaign had it’s (very serious) flaws, but it seems that the reluctance to aim and shoot cleanly, was due to the candidate’s internal conflict here.

I’m not sure what I think about this.  But I also often wondered why, with so many brilliant minds and writers at his disposal, McCain did not do a better job of articulating his message in speeches, interviews, debates and ads. 

How is it possible that McCain’s campaign could not manage to patch together a persuasive narrative?  Lisa’s post may explain at least some part of it.

Newsmax just sent out a press release including the following:

Fox Poll: McCain Tied in Key States

A just-released Fox News poll of 1,000 voters in each of six key states shows Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain making major last minutes strides to pull even with his Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama.

While Obama leads in two of the battlegrounds states, the candidates are now tied, or within 1 point of each other, in four others, according to the Rasmussen Reports survey.

In Ohio, one of the states that McCain’s supporters believe they have to win, McCain has pulled dead even. Obama and McCain are now tied in Ohio, at 49 percent apiece.

Here are the results from the Fox News poll:

Colorado

Obama 51

McCain 47

Florida

McCain 50

Obama 49

Missouri

Obama 49

McCain 49

N. Carolina

McCain 50

Obama 49

Ohio

Obama 49

McCain 49

Virginia

Obama 51

McCain 47

The poll has a plus or minus margin of error of 3 percent.

Charles Krauthammer explains why he’s voting for McCain.

My favorite parts:

I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe — neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) — yelling “Stop!” I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I’d rather lose an election than lose my bearings.

And:

I’ll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The “erratic” temperament issue, for example. As if McCain’s risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.

McCain the “erratic” is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.

And

McCain’s critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What’s astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.

And

The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic, soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.

Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.?

As reported by the Reno Gazette-Journal. 

Here’s the Sun editorial.  And here’s the RJ piece.

When you have a little time to spare, treat yourself to the video from the Al Smith Dinner, a Catholic charitable event at which Sen.s McCain and Obama spoke.  (Link goes to a Kuo & Joe blog post at Culture11 which contains 4 clips from the dinner.) 

I agree with David Kuo:

“Watch these videos. They are extraordinary, truly extraordinary. We are ridiculously blessed to live in a country where two men who are fiercely opposed to one another are nevertheless able to set it aside for a night and laugh. It isn’t quite a miracle, but it is certainly a marvel. And if you have had to see countless political ads and three presidential debates, you owe it to yourself to watch these videos.”

McCain’s cracks about the Clintons are priceless (and hilarious), and Obama’s speech was funny from begining to end.  Bravo to the very gifted writers who put both presentations together.

This morning, Culture11’s James Poulous called Yuval Levin “one of the sharpest tools in the conservative shed” and provided a link to this piece on why John McCain is a better choice than Obama.

I cheerfully admit to being biased toward all things Levin - you can see what I mean over at The New Atlantis - but the piece is well worth reading even for non-admirers.

As Jay Nordlinger would say, some pointlets:

Joe the Plumber, forget owning your own business:  you are now teed up for your own hit reality show.

Obama is now “Senator Government.”  Brit Hume said he thought it was a slip.  If so, what a great slip.  If not, brilliant.

Schieffer asked a couple of pretty good, hardball questions tonight.  And stayed quiet when he should have.  He was way better than the other two moderators, I thought.

Loved McCain’s “I am not George Bush” bit.  About time.  But too little too late?  Why has the McCain team been so poor at communicating?  Ironically:  they share that failure with the Bush administration.

On economics and taxes, why didn’t McCain mention his new thing this week:  cutting the capital gains tax to 7.5% from 15% plus a bigger capital loss write-off – ?  They are pro-growth policies and important.

Obama gave ONE example of something specific he would cut, and I can’t even remember what it was now.  McCain listed at least half a dozen things.  Brownie points there for having thought about it.

Loved it when McCain bashed the very bashable ethanol subsidies.  He did well on energy, I thought.  Liked the detail on nuclear energy and reprocessing plants.  Liked that he called Obama out on “we’ll look at it” comment re: drilling (which in polspeak means we’ll do absolutely nothing).

McCain FINALLY hit Obama on all the false/negative ads on his health care plan.  A $5,000 tax credit is more than anyone’s getting now, and the benefits tax would be nominal in comparison.

Why did Obama keep smiling and laughing when McCain was hitting him hardest?  It seemed odd.  A serious, indignant look would have been more effective.  And normal. 

McCain listed a few of Biden’s wrong judgments on foreign policy including the “cockamamie” idea of splitting Iraq into three parts; good.

McCain brought up ACORN, and that was good.  But he should have given more specifics.  ACORN has been investigated, and has had employees indicted and incarcerated, for the same kind of voter fraud they are perpetrating this year, yet Obama’s camp still gave them big bucks, and still defends them.  There are other ACORN ties as well, and I bet most voters don’t know about them.

I wish McCain were better at narrative.  There are connections that could be made, a story that could be told, of who Obama is and where he came from and where he will surely lead us.  It’s clear to most of us who have been reading and doing our homework, but the average American probably does not have a cohesive picture of the whole thing.  (I’ll try to find that flow chart thingie I saw the other day.)

Sum up:  McCain did much better than in the other debates because he had some fire and said things we hadn’t heard umpteen times and went after Obama more on legit points; and Obama did a little worse than previously because he reverted to talking points when flustered and because of the weird laughing thing. 

I think McCain won by a little, but not sure it’s enough.

Here’s some good, scathing political satire from Treacher.  (Satire:  it’s the breakfast of champions.)

Ref:  Apocalypse Now

“Do you smell that? It’s napalm, son. Nothing else on the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning.

Y’know, once we had a hail bomb….12 hours….and when it was all over I walked up. We didn’t find one of them, not one stinking dink body.

The smell, y’know that gasoline smell, that whole hell.

Smells like…….. Victory.

Some day this war’s gonna end.”

- Lieutenant Colonel Kilgore.

Here’s some more unbiased journalism from the national press:

(The premis is a joke. Didn’t anyone see Obama’s eyes darken and veins swell during the debate? At one point I thought he was going to pop his jaw out of joint while waiting for McCain to finish. And what he lacks in temper-mental-ness, Michelle MORE than makes up for.)

(Plus: I kind of like McCain’s grumpy old man routine when he’s had his fill of the crap on The Hill. The man’s got some fire; so what?)

Hat Tip:  All American Blogger

Since hearing word of widespread support (Paulson, Congress and the President) for the latest, greatest Bailout I’ve been feeling increasingly dejected.  And concerned.  And angry.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has a “plan” which will “shift” $700 billion in obligations from private companies to the American taxpayer.  Apparently he sees this as the only Way and has 9,000 wizards on stand-by to make it so.  (The same Wall Street wizards that got us into this mess, no doubt?)

And evidently most members of Congress are spellbound and preparing to waft more money New York’s way.

One can only imagine what Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (the largest beneficiary of political funds from Fannie & Freddie) will dream up as he joins hands and sings Tra La La La La with Reid and Pelosi.  I’m not sure how it ends, but I’m pretty sure the working title is Nightmare on Wall Street and that we are barely ten minutes in.

Setting the typically wrong-headed Paulson aside for a moment, how is it that Bush and Congress care so little about protecting the American taxpayer?

And why all the insistence on a quick solution?  This mess was not created in a week, yet Paulson and our illustrious Congressional geniuses think they can solve it by this Thursday?  Does it not occur to anyone that we need to take a deep breath, wade in, and calmly and pragmatically work our way through our many economic and financial problems in a careful and measured manner?

As Newt blogged today (thank God for Mr. Gingrich), between the crisis of liquidity on Wall Street, the crisis of bad energy policy that transfers $700 billion a year to foreign nations, the crisis of Sarbanes-Oxley that cripples entrepreneurs/start ups and drives banks and businesses from New York to London, and the crisis of a high corporate tax rate…we are in some very deep Doo Doo.

Newt proposes a ”non-bureaucratic solution that would stop the liquidity crisis almost overnight and do it using private capital rather than taxpayer money.”  He suggests four reforms that would do the trick without the bureaucracy and additional tax burden.  I suggest you read his blog post as it is well worth the time, but in summation they are:

#1  Stop the mark-to-market rule which is forcing companies into unnecessary bankruptcy. If short selling can be suspended on 799 stocks, the mark-to-market rule can be suspended for six months and then replaced with a more accurate three year rolling average mark-to-market. 

#2  Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley. It failed with Freddy, Fannie, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and AIG. It is crippling our entrepreneurial economy. One San Jose firm told Newt they would bring more than 20 companies public in the next year if the law was repealed. It’s Sarbanes-Oxley’s $3 million per startup annual accounting fee that is keeping these companies private.

#3  Go to a zero capital gains tax like China and Singapore.  Private capital will flood into Wall Street (at no cost to Joe Taxpayer) and lead to an increase in federal revenue through a larger, more prosperous economy.

#4  Pass an “all of the above” energy plan designed to bring home $500 billion of the $700 billion a year we are sending overseas. With that much energy income, our economy would boom.

E!! endorses these proposals (a fact I’m sure Newt is happy to hear) and strongly advises against implementation of the Paulson plan which by all reasoned accounts is going to be a total Mess.

In closing, I’ll be waiting to see what McCain says and does about all this.  If he doesn’t reject the Paulson/Bush/Congressional plan and closely align himself with much of what Newt said here, I may not be able to vote for him after all.

(Note:  To those who have heard me joke that I am going to “get drunk and vote for McCain,” consider this my semi-official back-peddle…pending the outcome of this mess and McCain’s stand on things.  Let’s see how Maverick-y the self-proclaimed maverick is when it really counts.) 

These bumper stickers are kind of fun.  Pick one up for just $2.99 plus mailing costs.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain boards his campaign plane to depart Philadelphia, Sunday, Sept. 21, 2008. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

With all due respect to the AP photographer (who probably couldn’t get any closer) and CNSNews (who needed a photo to go with their story), this tiny shot of McCain seems a little silly…

If there’s one thing I’ve learned from blogging and receiving tons of email, we all have our “pet” electoral issues and hot buttons – and they vary widely from person to person.  For me, it’s national security first; the economy (and tax policy) second; and energy policy (a closely related) third.

On the subject of the economy, Jack Kemp has a good op-ed on the presidential candidates and their proposed tax plans (thanks to Mike Davis at the NV RLC for bringing it to my attention).  I strongly encourage voters to read the whole thing, but here are some key points (summarized in my own words):

Barack Obama says he supports a tax cut in the form of a $500 refundable income tax credit for all workers (except those in the top 5 percent of income earners, who will pay more taxes) “unless the economy remains weak.”  So…Obama does recognize that tax increases on the rich have a negative effect on the overall economy.  (But why does he think that matters only in “weak” economic times?)

Obama’s tax credit does not reduce marginal tax rates, so it won’t benefit the general economy because it provides no long term (additional) incentives for work, savings, investment or business expansion.  (People will get their $500 refund check, spend it, and that will be That.)

On the other hand, McCain wants to double the personal exemption for dependents from $3,500 to $7,000 for families regardless of income.  (For middle-class workers in the 25% tax bracket, the $3,500 exemption increase would reduce their tax liability by $875 for each child.  Families with three children are thus looking at $2,600+ in tax savings.)

And McCain proposes marginal tax rate reductions – which is great news in country that pays the second highest corporate tax rates in the entire industrialized world.  McCain wants to reduce the federal corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent – a boon for middle class workers in the form of new jobs, better pay, and a stronger dollar.

And all this will most likely raise rather than reduce tax revenues.  (Why?  Kemp cites a 2007 study by the Treasury Department which showed that Ireland — with a 12.5% corporate tax rate — raises just shy of 50 percent more revenue on a comparative basis than the U.S. does with a 35 percent rate!)

McCain would also keep the top capital gains tax rate and dividend tax at 15% which is needed in the stock world (stocks are now held by more than 2/3rds of all Americans).  McCain further wants to phase out the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) which burdens 25 million middle-class families with another $2,700 in taxes each year (on average).

Obama, by contrast, has proposed to raise marginal tax rates for almost every federal tax — the individual income tax, the capital gains tax, the dividends tax, the payroll tax, the death tax, etc. and he would increase corporate taxes where and when he could.

McCain’s plan is a good start, but I agree with Kemp:  we need to promote additional middle-class tax cuts through fundamental reform of our “confusing, contradictory and confiscatory tax code.”

Kemp outlines a proposal by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. to allow workers to choose a flatter tax system (which is also worth reading about, at the end of his op-ed). 

Best Fred Thompson line:

To deal with these challenges the Democrats present a history-making nominee for president.  History-making in that he is the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for President.

Best Joe Lieberman line:

Senator Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who can do great things for our country in the years ahead. But eloquence is no substitute for a record — not in these tough times.

(My thanks to Rich Lowry for posting them verbatim on the Corner so I could cut and paste; I knew he would.)

All the news outlets were reporting it as I walked out the door at 7:30 a.m.  Personally, I like the pick and think this is good news for the GOP.  Here are some pros:

She’s a principled fiscal conservative who beat an incumbent by promising to cut government waste in Alaska – and did it.  She slashed pork spending, cancelled hundreds of millions of dollars of unnecessary construction projects, and sold the gubernatorial private jet on eBay (for $2.7M).

She’s for responsible drilling.  I heard a clip from a speech she gave on “the small sliver of coastal terrain” that is ANWR and how/why drilling could/should be done there and elsewhere.  It was good. 

She’s a social conservative and pro-life (but not rabid about it) which will energize the GOP base.  She’s happily married and has five children, the most recent born in April (a Down Syndrome baby she gladly and willingly chose to have).

Any attacks on her lack of experience – she’s been governor for only two years – can be turned around:  she has more senior executive experience than Obama, or Biden (or McCain, for that matter).  Plus, she’s the #2  and not running for POTUS.  Yet.

She’s plain spoken “regular folks” so should connect well with the middle class.  And she’s got a fairly compelling personal story and family life:  athlete, beauty queen, hunter, former professional fisher person (LOL), married her high school sweetheart, son about to deploy to Iraq.

On a more personal note, I like that she’s a Hockey Mom.  (My brother played hockey for years, so we spent many winter weekends hanging around in Michigan and Canadian hockey arenas.)  Not that it has anything to do with politics.  Then again, someone who enjoys a fast-moving, hard-hitting, sometimes down-and-dirty sport like hockey must have a tough streak, right?

I’ll do some Cons later after I think more about it.

6:01 a.m. (Pacific)

Politico is reporting that Pawlenty says it’s Not him.

A few on The Corner are saying that this morning Alaska Governor Sarah Palin left Anchorage and landed on Dayton, OH.

And:  Romney will be in Dayton today.  (?!)

Whatever the case, McCain’s team has done a great job keeping this one under wraps (no leaks:  amazing!)

Well this is interesting.  The Reno Gazette-Journal is reporting that an RNC panel has rejected both the “dueling delegations” from Nevada and has recommended that a  “compromise group” be seated.  This is the first I’ve heard of it.  Let me see what I can find out.

 Update: I still don’t have anything solid to go on, but it’s hard to believe the Nevada GOP would go for a compromise delegation…since that was already offered and turned down by the Paul supporters way back at the state convention last August. (dumb, Dumb, DUMB)

From today’s Nevada News & Views:

LETHAL WEAPON NO MORE

Harry Reid declared the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository dead…just before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave a “green light” to move forward with the final stage of the licensing process and dismissing a challenge to it by the state of Nevada.

Then Obama began running ads attacking John McCain on his pro-Yucca Mountain stance, figuring it would do electoral harm to the GOP nominee’s chances in Nevada…just before a new poll came out showing that less than one in four voters saying the Yucca Mountain issue would have a major influence on their votes.  And 38 percent of them said the issue wouldn’t effect their vote one way or the other whatsoever.

It’s starting to look like the proverbial “third rail” of Nevada politics isn’t quite so lethal any longer.

On the subject of delegates to the Republican national convention, a few readers (who don’t normally follow politics but are now perking up) have asked me what the stats from Nevada’s state caucuses were.  You can view them here. 

Romney got 51.1% of the vote; Ron Paul got 14.73%; and McCain got 13.75%.

Confession:

I love to predict political outcomes but so far have lacked the courage to post them on E!!  Today, I shed the shackles of fear and take a stand with some predictions…

Obama’s VP pick will be Evan Bayh.

McCain’s VP pick will be Romney (who will run in 2012 when McCain decides one term was enough).

McCain-Romney will win easily in November.

Hillary will win her party’s nominiation in 2012 after saying something like this to the Dems, “Hey Dummies!  Your arugula-eating, Maxim reading, Harvard grad Golden Boy got stomped in ’08, so stop messing around and nominate me.”

Excerpts from Howey Politics:

In a sharp turnaround, Republican John McCain has opened a 5-point lead on Democrat Barack Obama in the U.S. presidential race and is seen as a stronger manager of the economy, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday…

McCain leads Obama among likely U.S. voters by 46 percent to 41 percent, wiping out Obama’s solid 7-point advantage in July and taking his first lead in the monthly Reuters/Zogby poll…

The poll was taken Thursday through Saturday as Obama wrapped up a weeklong vacation in Hawaii that ceded the political spotlight to McCain, who seized on Russia’s invasion of Georgia to emphasize his foreign policy views…

The dip in support for Obama…cut across demographic and ideological lines. He slipped among Catholics, born-again Christians, women, independents and younger voters.

“There were no wild swings, there isn’t one group that is radically different than last month or even two months ago. It was just a steady decline for Obama across the board,” Zogby said.

This morning on the drive to work, I heard Heidi Harris say (on talk radio KXNT) that Obama will be opening four more campaign offices in Las Vegas this week.  Not surprising now that McCain has a slight edge in the polls.

The good news for the Dems is their voter registration edge of about 60,000, many of whom were signed up by the Obama campaign in recent months.  In addition, the Las Vegas Sun reports that the Dems have trained 600 new precinct leaders in addition to the 1,000+ who were trained for the caucuses.

The bad news for Obama is that he has to overcome the senate’s most liberal voting record in a state that is unwaveringly pro-gun and has a deep aversion to tax hikes.  He’s also got a problem in re: to energy because the majority of Nevadans – in both parties – support creating more energy (drill, drill, drill) vs. cutting consumption.

The question is:  will those extra voter registrations and the opening of these new campaign offices make a difference for Obama in November – and should the NV GOP follow suit?

Republicans tend to be more reliable voters, so the GOP doesn’t always have to work as hard to get their peeps to the polls.  With numbers this close, though, McCain’s people may want to take a page from the 2004 Bush-Cheney playbook.  The Republican ground operation in Nevada was huge and Kerry was defeated by 21,500 votes.

Not sure that’s going to happen, though.  The McCain campaign seems to be focusing more on Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan — states with larger numbers of electoral votes than Nevada – I guess thinking that if they can win 2 out of 3, they can win the whole enchilada.

Obama seems to be taking a different approach:  grabbing enough (other) Bush states such that losses in the big Midwestern states won’t mean as much.  Clearly, Nevada is one he wants in the bag.

Rasmussen now has McCain 45% vs. Obama @ 42% in Nevada.  See their chart (below) to see the gains and losses since February.

How big is Nevada for the candidates?  Politicker’s Pindell Report lists Nevada as the most competitive (closest) toss up state in the nation.

Rasmussen reminds us that Nevada has cast its five Electoral College votes for the winning candidate in seven straight presidential elections. And the last four of these were very competitive with nobody carrying the state by more than four percent of the popular vote.

This year is shaping up to be another squeaker – for somebody. 

Just read this Comment from a reader (”Monte” of Portland, OR) on Ann Coulter’s column today:

This McCain campaign ad is a must see.  LOL

It’s no secret that I’m not a big fan of John McCain – but for those in northern NV who would like to see him in person…he will be hosting a Town Hall meeting this Tuesday, July 29th at Reed High School in Sparks. The doors will open at 8:00 am.  To RSVP for the event, click here or call (702) 425-2299. The campaign staff says no confirmation or reply is needed to attend the event.

John Derbyshire @ NRO on Obama’s speech:

If you got a leg tingle from that, one of your computer cables is stripped & resting against your leg.

Is it just me, or have presidential candidates been getting worse and worse these past few decades? These two are appalling. I shall not vote for either. Fact, I wouldn’t trust either of them to mail a letter.

As reported by the Nevada Appeal here, about 90,500 Nevadans were out of work in June.  Our unemployment rate climbed to 6.4 percent - the highest level in more than 14 years.

Though this is bad for many residents of the state, it may be good news for Conservatives who worry that Nevada may turn Blue on this November’s electoral map.  As jobs stay scarce, businesses struggle to make payroll, and gas prices stay high, fiscal conservatism – including the desire for balanced budgets and lower taxes - will (should!) sieze the hearts and minds of those who might otherwise swing Left in both the state and national elections this fall…IF conservative candidates can convince constituents they stand for these values.

Lately I’ve been reading a lot of commentary suggesting that Conservatives need to get angry about the frightening Leftward socio-political swing our country is in danger of taking no matter who wins the election this fall – and to do/say something about it.  For a little taste of what this might look like, click below for my recent column/rant in Liberty Watch Magazine:

 http://www.liberty-watch.com/volume04/issue04/trueconservative.php

In re: to my comments and questions about voting Independent/Libertarian vs. Republican this fall, reader Nicky Cheese made these comments:

I’ve never bought into that “spoiler” rhetoric. More choices are better than less, no? 

Individuals ought to vote for the candidate they believe best represents them. A vote is a reflection of one’s values. Utilize the full range of potential choices in order to affirm what is closest to your values.

Movements are long-term.

More choices are better than less.  But is it really a “choice” when we don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of actually getting what we chose?  If a vote for Barr or Paul still gets us McCain or Obama, as we all know it does, what good was our principled selection?

And is the spoiler argument really just rhetoric?  In the Bush/Gore contest, Gore lost Florida (and the whole enchilada) because of the votes that went to Nader.  No doubt the Naderites were “voting their values.”  But what about the prudence of picking what’s better when you can’t have what’s Best?  I’d sure like to ask those Nader voters what they’d choose if they had a Do-Over. 

The argument that gives me greater pause – i.e. that I think is more compelling – is that of long-term vs. short-term thinking.  As we consider the coming decades, what will best stop our slide to the Left and the disturbing hyper-expansion of the State? 

Do we stand on principle and vote ultra-conservative or libertarian every two years, win or lose, with the hope of steering the GOP to the right and/or bolstering what might someday become a viable Third Party?  And if we don’t, what will compel anyone to consider our cause?

Please chime in and pass along this post so we can hear from more folks.  I’ll post the best remarks up front to spark further discussion!