The Anchoress has a post up that was picked up as a feature on Real Clear Politics (congratulations, my friend!). As always, it is beautifully written, sculpted, layer by layer into a towering edifice of reasonable discourse. And she blasts the people who are thinking of forming a third party challenge if the Republican candidate is not quite Christian enough. As she points out, running a third party candidate would be political suicide for the Christian right. We have seen all of this before.
Had Ross Perot not run in 1992 it is unlikely Bill Clinton would have been president. I suspect the Democrats would like nothing better than to see a third party of conservative Christians siphon just enough votes away from the GOP to do the same for Hillary.
We’re already watching the Clintons re-run all their moves from the ‘92 playbook. Triangulation Kitty is again being served up to feed the masses, this time with Bill as the Hard Left Outside and Hillary as the Softer, Chewy and Yummy Center. We’re already watching the press do what it can to bury any negative perspectives on the Clintons and their team. (Notice that Hillary said she gave the Hsu money back to the donors and the press said, “oh, fine…no story here anymore!” Next that money will be re-donated to her campaign). We’ve seen the reemergence of Sandy “Pants” Berger as a trusted advisor, and Harold Ickes as himself. The Clintons have no reason not to believe that what worked before will not work again. All that is needed now, is the “third party” mindset that brought Bill Clinton his presidency on a buckled platter.
And here it comes.
I’m going to hate watching Mrs. Clinton assume the presidency with 42% of the vote, like her husband did, and I’m going to hate watching her get sworn in in January ‘09, while her husband holds the big bible and bites his lip, and I’m going to really hate everything that comes after it. So will you.
The third-party pipe-dreamers will once again make the Clinton tag team victorious. And with a Supreme Court likely to need three quick replacements in ‘09, the third party folks will watch as the court becomes a permanent 5-4 liberal majority activist court - for decades. Decades, folks. The America you think you’re going to “preserve” with your third party candidate may become unrecognizable in a very short time. The Roe v Wade you think you’re going to reverse with your unelectable third candidate will seem almost quaint when compared with the “compassionate” euthanasia and the “practical, community-serving, environment saving” limitations on life you’ll be watching get handed down as law by an activist court determined to see the Constitution as a “living” and flexible document.
That is the looming disaster: losing the courts. We already see the Democrats blocking judicial nominees. You know they are balking so that they can pack the courts if they win the White House. And activist, leftist courts are already a problem. Conservatives watched all of this play out before. They watched as the courts leaned farther and farther to the left. They watched as third party candidates split the votes at a crucial time.
And they have lost the courts. I was appalled at the people who sat out the last election because their single issue - illegal immigration - was not solved to their liking. Hey, guess what? It was not solved to my liking, either. But I voted. Because I knew how very important it was. The opposition sat out the legislative elections in Venezuela, too. Those who boycotted gave Hugo Chavez a free hand and a compliant rubber stamp to give him whatever he wanted. And he wanted the opposition's freedom.
In this case, sitting the election out or running a third party candidate gives the election to someone who will pack the courts and have a powerful effect for decades. Go ye and read what Anchoress wrote. She is more lyrical than I am.
But if you support a third party run because your single issue trumps everything else, then I submit it would be a really good idea to take a look at the beam in your eye rather than looking at the speck in someone else's.