Monday, April 23, 2012

Third-Party Candidacies - A Destructive Delusion For This Election

Two weeks ago, Rick Santorum suspended his presidential campaign.  Anyone reading this blog knows that he was my preferred candidate until that time.  Unless something happens out of the ordinary, Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee.

Now comes the time to face reality.  To wit:

  • Come the first Tuesday in November, one of two men will win the election - Obama or the GOP nominee.  No other individual will win that election.  Pure and simple.  Got that?
  • Anyone who runs as an "independent" or some other third-party candidate will dilute the vote of either the Democratic or Republican candidate depending on ideology.  For example, a "Green Party" candidate would likely dilute the Democratic vote to the Republican's advantage.  A conservative or libertarian "third-party" would dilute the GOP vote to Obama's advantage.
I am hearing of several conservative and pro-life "third-party wannabees" that are making disturbing noises of running in the general election.  Some of them realize that they haven't a snowball's chance in hell of winning, but they think there are other goals that can be accomplished, e.g. education, party advancement, etc.

However laudable these goals may be in and of themselves, they will be more than overshadowed by the other effect of their candidacies, that is, the dilution of the GOP vote to the advantage of Obama.  These goals, worthy though they may be in and of themselves, must be subordinated to the goal of removing Obama from the White House.  Should Obama win (God forbid), our republic may well not survive another four years for an election.  Obama shows troubling signs of assuming dictatorial powers in complete disregard of the Constitution.

I therefore implore any "third-party" aspirants to understand that if they unwittingly contribute to Obama's re-election, that any goals that they hold dear will never be realized.  Please cease your futile (and destructive) efforts and unite (at least for now) behind the GOP nominee to remove from the Oval Office the worst individual yet who has ever occupied it.


  1. Better a lazy fireman that never gets off his rump and puts out your house fire, than an evil fireman that just drives by.

    Ur, a, better a lazy firmean that hoses down the corner of your house while the rest of it burns, than....


    Better to have your guy raping your daughter than an evil stranger.

    Dang. What's wrong here.

    Better a republican to destroy marriage, allow gays to run the military, and permit abortion rights folks to run roughshod over religious rights than that democrat bastard that is doing it all. At least our guy wont raise taxes, because my money is important to me.

    1. And what, pray tell, is your constructive and practical suggestion for ridding the White House of Obama in 2012? Mind you, I'm only interested in realistic solutions, not "Don Quixote" candidates or pixie eccentrics who thump their chests saying "I'm more prolife/conservative/purist/etc than that GOP candidate so vote for me to make your bold statement even though that paves the way for Obama".

      As I said before, we've no choice but to play the hand that we're dealt and to do so well.

  2. Face the facts, the GOP's few decades of being the conservatives main party are over.
    Conservatism is finally splintering for good, as it began to after 1992 when the cold war ended. For all I know, the democratic party shows similar signs. Politics in the US is a mess. Lobbiests are at their peak. Decadence, greed, secular humanism, man worship and its attendent corruption and mistrust has become mainstream. The culture wars are facing their ultimate culmination, before the final showdown begins and the traditionalist counter culture regains position as the norm, sociologically/theoligically.

    I'm not voting for either of them.
    A bad candidate is a bad candidate.
    Neither one is pro-life, both are members of fake/secular made up religions that worship man.

    I'll move to another country if we continue with such poor candidates in the future, because if we don't the country may not have much left to it ...

    At least organic agriculture is doing well. My hope hasnt disappeared, but the concept of politics and society needs re-evaluting. We need radical changes. I say that as a supporter of Fr. Ronald Ringrose at St Athanasius (1962 rite) Catholic Church next to wolftrap in Vienna.

    1. "For all you know the democratic party shows similar signs"? That causes me to suspect that you aren't paying close attention to things political when elections aren't on the horizon. Whatever else they may be, they are 100% pro-death; they will (and have done so) expelled anyone who departs from that plantation.

      A HUGE part of the problem in our political life has stemmed from the fact that Christians and others of good will have abdicated their God-given responsibilities, not wishing to "dirty their pristine little hands" in the rough and tumble of politics. With that vacuum, evil has rushed in. So you advocate MORE abdication? Seriously? Can you say "sin of omission"?

      As I said in my comment below, I suspect that if Obama wins another term, there will be no opportunity for the "Traditionalist counter culture to regain position".

      We need to be engaged at ALL times, with no silly talk of going overseas. The price of liberty is ETERNAL vigilance - not just during election season.

  3. They are both BAD PRO ABORTION candidates.

    Give me a break. A radical revaluation of politics is needed.

    1. A radical reevaluation of politics? I actually agree. HOWEVER - now is not the time! We must do what we can to minimize the damage, or any "reevaluation" will be a moot point as Obama seems hell-bent on ending our republic, and thus our ability to have any voice in public affairs. We may well not have ANY "candidates in the future" if we don't stop Obama now.


Please be respectful and courteous to others on this blog. We reserve the right to delete comments that violate courtesy and/or those that promote dissent from the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.