Are Conservatives Six Times Smarter Than Liberals?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

In the 2000 election Ralph Nad(i)r got 2.7% of the vote while Pat Buchanan only got .05% of the vote...

It seems the conservatives made a smart decision to stick with the electable conservative in what they knew would be a close election....

Will history repeat itself and will a splintered left hand reelection to the greatest maladministration in the hisory of the republic....


Nad(i)r's vanity run reminds me of Christ's injunction to false leaders that it is "better to have a millstone wrapped your neck and be cast into the sea then to lead one of my little ones astray."

In these perilous times Nad(i)r's candidacy is a war crime...

[baldguy]

1. Conservatives do what they're told.

There's no thinking or intelligence involved.

Liberals question everything. Thinking and intelligence is required but since not everybody is endowed with these facilities to the same extent, some will vote for Nader.

[VOX]

14. Good analysis. Discipline vs. creativity...

Hard to keep us progressives in line, to some extent.

[bryant69]

2. A War Crime?

I mean I think it's crap that Nader is running again too, but let's be reasonable. This reminds me an argument of conservative columnists saying that anti-war protesters are giving aid and comfort to the enemy and so need to be hung as traitors.

You also have to look at where the party was in 2000. After 8 years of Clinton we were a bit complacent (while the right was energized). I don't think we are complacent any more.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[union_maid]

3. We weren't all complacent

And you don't see a conservative challenger threatening even half a percentage point of Bush's vote this time, do you? I understand that most Nader voters in 2000 were young, had no real experience living under different administrations and were bamboozled, but there is no explanation for those who'll consider voting for him this time.

[monroncrief]

11. But they will...

i'm more concerned about MILLIONS of votes going uncounted AGAIN....

[StopThief]

4. How many votes were cast for the Libertarian. . . .

candidate?

[Nashyra]

5. It has nothing to do with "conservatives being smart"

the conservative base has 3 main componenets, lower taxes, religious right, and the fear of somebody getting something of theirs for free. Meanwhile the Dem base is inclusive of so many voters that each are passionate of their beliefs and a higher calling of decency for those less fortunate and we all want some part of the guy at the top and we don't reward him or her with our vote if we feel our issue is not being addressed. It's like the Pilot union vs the flight attendant union negotiations. The majority of pilots are looking at the money issue because they are the breadwinners of their family or future family and there are very few women so the vote comes down to money only. The flight attendant union have a majority of women who have a vast differences of issues not that money is not important, flexible working hours, enhanced maternity leave, educational leaves etc, we have been more geared working around our families and thenm of course there are the flight attendants that are male, single women and single working parents but they are not the majority. It is much harder for us to elect our officers and there is much more acrimony because of the diversity. However all that wind being blown, when we finally get a leader or a contract it far surpasses the pilots contract and in the past has been well paid according to industry standards, when it comes to job security and flexibility. We make a lot of noise to who ever is finally elected and get to work on our own issues because we can. Kerry gets elected we get to work on our issues not the RW issues.

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. Not many (0.36% of the vote)

Don't confuse Libertarians with conservatives. They have as much in common with Republicans as they do with Democrats. They are for very limited government like conservatives, but they are also very socially liberal (pro-choice, gay rights).

[Cheswick2.0]

6. nope, it's not a matter of smart and not smart

It is a matter of virtue and no virtue. People who support Nader do so because of ideals. They just don't realize he doesn't share them.

[union_maid]

13. Ok, but what about the math issue?

Not all Naderites that I spoke to really seemed to believe that they were destroying the village to save the village. Some really didn't see why a left/liberal third party would cause the right to win. I mean, that's math challenged.

[Nicholas_J]

7. Well conservatives do not split ranks as easily

And it is based on the conservative philosophy of control.

They would all rather be in control, than to be right, and the left would rather focus on degrees of differnce, than to be in control, which is why rather than form a coalition with Democrats, Nader would rather try to force the party into HIS particular vision of what a left leaning party should be, though a political analysis of all of Naders past behaviour does indicate that he is to the right of both Kerry and Gephardt and Kucinich. ON the Vote Match web site, which designates a candidates political leaning by a very long questioneer based on the candidates political platform and past behaviors, places Nader farther to the right of any of the other candidates, except Joe Lieberman.

A lot of people beleive that Nader is the candiadte to change the way government runs due to his statements about candidates taking a great deal of money from corporate interests in order to run their campaigns, but Nader has a long history of taking a lot of soft money from special interests to run his political action organization.

Some of the worse things about Naders campaign is that he has some ideas about National Health, but his idea for financing it is so incredibly bad that it would barely finance ten percent of the public who do not have health care. He proposes a 3.5 percent payroll tax to fund universal healthcare. Even some of his moronic satements that Tobacco is the worlds worse air pollutant show that Nader is running simply because he has a Ross Perot like beef with the democratic party, becasue they will not act as an obstructionist party, showing that Nader has little understanding about how the U.S, government was designed, which totally required that parties make deals with each other to get part of what they want. Since many people in this nation to not ascribe to liberal, progressive ideology, and they too pay taxes, as well as support the government in other ways, even as a minority, our form of government requires that their rights and ideas, even political ideas, be protected, and that the founding fathers very cleverly dsigned government to pevent either a dictatorship of the left or the right. Nader simply is pissed because Democrats have not been able to establish a dictatorship of the left.

[Nicholas_J]

8. The clearest indication

Of the problems that the liberal end of the spectrum has can easily be seen in the fact that we have had ten candidates in total, where Bush did not have ONE conservative deciding to run against him, even though there are many conservatives who are royally pissed with Bush. Democrats need to firmly get behind few candidates at the begining, and perhaps make it more difficult for more than two or three candidates to run for the primary. It is obvious that people like Mc Cain clearly are dissatisfied with Bush, but it is also clear that Mc Cain will not split with the party and support Bush and the neocons

[Bread and Circus]

9. The funny thing is that Buchanan would probably be a better Prez than Bush

Or would he???

[Nicholas_J]

10. Old style conservative that he is.

Punchiing out a cop has always given me a dewgree of respect for Buchanan that I reserve for only a handful of conservatives.

Say what you may about William F. Buckley, he argues well, and rationally, and does not refer to emotional tricks to win his point.

Another conservative I have a bit of respect for.

Respect for Richard Nixon , for being imminently catchable. No matter what, you knew Richard Nixon for what he was, and he didnt really try to be anything else. In fact, over the last 50 years more liberal legislation was signed by Nixon, particularly in the area of environmentalism, than any democrat. Most of the time without a fight.
Except for the situation in Vietnam, where he didnt get out as fast as an angry public wanted, but in the end, he still got out, in a way he probably didnt want, because he was correct, the North Vietnamese did not honor the treaty that ended the war, which was what he predicted. Leading to many catastrophes, such as the eventual rise of Pol Pot in Cambodia. Leaving Southeast Asia a little slower, and leaving more stable governments behind could have saved millions of lives. Nixon bears the blame for the legacy of Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson. Watergate was the result of a the fear of a man who treid to be president for so long, that fear of losing office led to actions he had no need of taking, as no democrat could have beaten him. History will deal with Richard Nixon far more kindly than the generations closest to his time. He was the one man who was best prepared to be president at the time, and was for good or ill, just too human.

Except for that statement about not being a crook, which was techinically true, but not in the spirit in which the statement was made, Nixon was probably one of the better Republicans to serve.

The last of the old style Republicans before the seige of the Neo-Cons.

[Meshuga]

15. Maybe we liberals are too idealistic...

A lot of people on the left stick too much to ideals and forget to be effective. Conservatives were pretty effective electing Bush last time around (with the help of the supreme court and Jeb Bush). If Kerry loses because of Nader (I personally think Nader will not be much of a factor since people voting for Nader would not vote for Kerry anyway) we all would have to learn to deal with the government we deserve. Even if it sucks... That's democracy!