Hall of Fame
:first: In the wee hours of the morning my time, Sir Turbo typed out some political smack.
As Lucky said, the Republicans are no longer conservative. Their nominee certainly isn't.You know, when you have two conservative parties running against one another, then it only weakens the chances of the conservatives winning. It's like handing over the election to the liberals.
Don't you remember in 2000 when Green Party voters lost the election for Gore? They thought Gore was too similar to Bush, and that he wasn't liberal enough or "green" enough.I don't think I have ever seen the Democrats even try such a strategy. I know that they are naturally prone to be collective thinkers ... while conservatives are usually independent thinkers.
The Ralph Nader votes that left-wingers denied Gore in New Hampshire and Florida would have been enough to put Gore over the top in either state. And had Gore won either or those states, he would have won the entire election. Ever Democrat could see it.
Many Democrats were furious with the Green Party voters (and still are), but look at what has happened in the eight years since:
The Democrats nominated their most liberal congressman. Michael Moore, who was perhaps Nader's most vocal supporter and Gore's harshest critic on the left, has endorsed Obama.
And what has Al Gore been up to lately? Well, let's just say that no left-wingers criticize him for not being "green" enough these days.
Voters who are willing to go third-party can have tremendous influence on a major party.
Yes, in 2000 many of them looked to influence the Democratic Party long-term rather than win an election in the short term. And it worked.I also think that they have learned some political wisdom that the conservatives have not yet realized.
So if some in our house decide they want to kill children, we should side with them to avoid division? No thanks! I'd sooner see the house demolished.A house divided cannot stand.