How to stop Dems in 2008
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49956
April 28, 2006
Ever since Ronald Reagan retired from political life, I've been voting
primarily defensively in presidential elections.
It hasn't been about electing Republicans to the White House since then, it
has been about preventing Democrats from winning.
For those who share my view, it appears the best way to prevent a Democrat -
presumably Hillary Rodham Clinton - from winning the presidency in 2008 is
to encourage a third-party candidacy committed to building a wall on the
Mexican border and making enforcement of immigration laws the No. 1
priority.
At least that is the conclusive finding of Scott Rasmussen's latest
eye-opening survey.
According to the poll, an unnamed Democrat is virtually unstoppable in 2008,
with a 12-point advantage over an unnamed Republican. Of course, pretty much
everyone knows the name of the Democratic candidate in 2008. It's hardly a
secret. It's Hillary. And the only question left to answer is who her
opponent will be.
But it really doesn't matter much, according to the Rasmussen poll. Because
of the rejection of President Bush's immigration policies by the American
people, the Republican nominee is not going to win. The best case for
beating Hillary Clinton in 2008 is made, amazingly enough, by a third-party
challenge focused like a laser beam on border security and immigration
policy.
The poll finds 44 percent of Americans say they would vote for a Democrat if
the presidential election were held today. Only 32 percent said they would
vote for a Republican. It's a case of punishing Bush by taking it out on his
successor.
But the dynamics of the race completely change when you introduce the
possibility of a third-party candidate pledged to immigration enforcement
and building a barrier along the Mexican border.
With that option, support for both major parties plummets. The Democrats
hold on to 31 percent support, while the Republicans fall to 21 percent. But
the third-party candidate finishes in a virtual tie with the Democrat at 31
percent.
Now, I know this is all very preliminary. I know we're still more than two
years away from another presidential election. I know we have mid-term
congressional elections later this year before we even start the campaigns
for the presidency. I know. I know. I know.
But does anyone else see the significance of this survey?
For the first time in my lifetime, a third-party presidential candidate
could actually have a chance at victory in 2008. I'd say that's pretty
exciting.
Is such a candidate on the horizon?
Would such a candidacy by necessity have to be third party?
Could a candidate with such views win the Republican nomination?
And, where is Tom Tancredo and what is he doing for the next six years?
Tancredo has already pledged to run as a Republican if no other member of
his party places sufficient emphasis on this crisis. But what about a
third-party bid? If it looks like a Clinton-McCain race or a
Clinton-Giuliani race, would Tancredo or some other leader on this issue
consider a third-party run to save our country?
I don't use that phrase lightly - "save our country." No other issue can so
quickly destroy our nation that this one.
There was an old joke: "One nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day."
But seriously, just one nuclear weapon smuggled across the Mexican border
will forever, fundamentally change the course of our history. Millions of
deaths is a cataclysm from which we could recover, but America would never
truly be the same.
So, who is it going to be? Who will step forward to challenge the Democrat
and Republican political establishments in 2008? Who will dare to shake up
our preconceived notions of what we can and cannot do in American politics?
--
Jim
http://www.geocities.com/anti_multiculture/index.html
Unite Against Multiculturalism!
"Abolish Multi-Culty and String Up the Traitors!"
|