Just vote no

[Peter1469]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70605

"Voting for a bad candidate of either party is the surest way to waste your vote," Farah says. "If you want to promote real positive political change in America in 2008, the best way is to reject them both – choosing a third-party alternative or writing in another choice. Just imagine the message this will send the Republican and Democratic party establishments if millions of us do that."

***

"Barack Obama is possibly the worst major-party candidate ever to be nominated to run for the presidency," he says. "I understand his still largely unknown but extremist views will hurt the country. But, as I explain in my book, McCain will actually be worse for the country in the long run. A victory by McCain, whose positions on many of the major issues of the day parallel Obama's, will actually forestall the day of reckoning America desperately needs to right its teetering ship of state."

[Michael Aldrich]

1.   A vote for a third-party candidate is a vote wasted. Theodore Roosevelt could not win under the Progressive (or “Bull Moose”) Party ticket in 1912. He gave the election to Woodrow Wilson. Ross Perot couldn’t do it as an independent in 1992. He gave the election to Bill Clinton. And don’t you dare get me started on Ralph Nader in 2000.
2.   Barack Obama is not the worst major-party candidate ever to be nominated. George W. Bush is.
3.   Comparing John McCain to Barack Obama is like comparing apples to oranges, and it does not help your cause.

Neither party has put forth a decent nominee since the 1950s: Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson. I tolerated Bush in ’88, but he broke his back to please the social conservatives in ’92 and that’s where I lost faith.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

1.   A vote for a third-party candidate is a vote wasted. Theodore Roosevelt could not win under the Progressive (or “Bull Moose”) Party ticket in 1912. He gave the election to Woodrow Wilson. Ross Perot couldn’t do it as an independent in 1992. He gave the election to Bill Clinton. And don’t you dare get me started on Ralph Nader in 2000.
2.   Barack Obama is not the worst major-party candidate ever to be nominated. George W. Bush is.
3.   Comparing John McCain to Barack Obama is like comparing apples to oranges, and it does not help your cause.

Neither party has put forth a decent nominee since the 1950s: Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson. I tolerated Bush in ’88, but he broke his back to please the social conservatives in ’92 and that’s where I lost faith.

bush was a sitting governor of a large state.  he had both business and executive experience.  regardless, i agree with your assertion that a third party vote is just throwing your vote away.  these are both pathetic candidates and bo is simply the least qualified candidate that either party has presented to the american people in my life time.  its kind of a coin flip.  if i really thought that a bo win might promote a conservative rebirth than i might vote a third party or just save the gas and stay home.  on the other hand, i believe that scotus is the lasting imprint of a presidency.  2-3 bo appointments would have a long a deleterious effect on the future of this country.

[Michael Aldrich]

1.   A vote for a third-party candidate is a vote wasted. Theodore Roosevelt could not win under the Progressive (or “Bull Moose”) Party ticket in 1912. He gave the election to Woodrow Wilson. Ross Perot couldn’t do it as an independent in 1992. He gave the election to Bill Clinton. And don’t you dare get me started on Ralph Nader in 2000.
2.   Barack Obama is not the worst major-party candidate ever to be nominated. George W. Bush is.
3.   Comparing John McCain to Barack Obama is like comparing apples to oranges, and it does not help your cause.

Neither party has put forth a decent nominee since the 1950s: Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson. I tolerated Bush in ’88, but he broke his back to please the social conservatives in ’92 and that’s where I lost faith.

bush was a sitting governor of a large state.  he had both business and executive experience.  regardless, i agree with your assertion that a third party vote is just throwing your vote away.  these are both pathetic candidates and bo is simply the least qualified candidate that either party has presented to the american people in my life time.  its kind of a coin flip.  if i really thought that a bo win might promote a conservative rebirth than i might vote a third party or just save the gas and stay home.  on the other hand, i believe that scotus is the lasting imprint of a presidency.  2-3 bo appointments would have a long a deleterious effect on the future of this country.

And what exactly did he accomplish as governor and businessman? Nothing comes to mind at this moment.

I agree with you on the Supreme Court point. I don’t want another Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But I don’t want Roe overturned. Bah.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

the fact that he had real world experiences even failure in business is a plus.  executive experience is a plus.  bo could not run the desk at a local ymca.  unfortunately, bush's compassionate conservatism is not conservative at all.  he has demonstrated poor management skills, no fiscal restraint and failed to prosecute this war appropriately, in total fashion.  on the other hand, this country has not been successfully attacked since 9-11 and he has placed two strong conservative jurists upon the court.  roe is bad law and was not a issue for the court.  a truly conservative court would recognize the precedent of roe, the case law built upon it and the damage to the predictability and stability of law that overturning roe would ensure.   

[conley]

whoever it is will be a one termer...i guess it depends on the political leanings of the judge how long to hold on before retiring.

[Peter1469]

Vote no

"Barack Obama is possibly the worst major-party candidate ever to be nominated to run for the presidency," he says. "I understand his still largely unknown but extremist views will hurt the country. But, as I explain in my book, McCain will actually be worse for the country in the long run. A victory by McCain, whose positions on many of the major issues of the day parallel Obama's, will actually forestall the day of reckoning America desperately needs to right its teetering ship of state."

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

clearly worth consideration.

[Michael Aldrich]

I’m still on the fence about McCain. He has the chance to tear down Barack Obama TODAY, but apparently he doesn’t have the balls to do so. He wants to run a “respectful” campaign. 

[SDML]

Voting 3rd party or a write-in is hardly a wasted vote. It matters less if your guy wins - more that a message is sent that Americans are sick & tired of business as usual. Only then will we begin to see meaningful change.

A vote for the lesser of 2 evils means that if your guy wins, you're still stuck with evil. Congratulations.

[gorknoids]

Obama has already stated (No "intimated") that he absolutely intends to raise taxes, is dedicated to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in the GWOT, and believes that rural whites are gun-toting bible-thumpers with no common sense. 
     That's enough for me to dismiss the idiot.  What he has NOT stated is that every Supreme Court appointment he makes will be a communist in the vein of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  These are the people who REALLY have control over your life.  McCain clearly would install conservative, constitution-minded judges.  Obama has most recently been at odds with the party-line decision that the DC gun ban was unconstitutional.  Once again (As with his take on the Surge.) he is too stupid to look at facts dispassionately and make a defensible argument one way or the other.  He simply goes with the worst possible position and gets pissy when questioned about it. 
     I'd get into his behavior on his MEPS (Middle East Photo Shoot), but I'm afraid that the discussion of dignity, decorum, and respect for the United States would be lost on quite a few members of this forum.