"ScottW" wrote in message
news:TbDfd.44259$bk1.9589@fed1read05...

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...
This article proves beyond doubt that Michael McKelvy is not the true,
classical conservative that he claims to be, but simply a partisan hack.
Or
perhaps, in more erudite terms, a Republican attack dog.

I can sum it up for you. The well-known magazine American Conservative
has
endorsed John Kerry for President because: "George W. Bush has come to
embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful
conservatism."

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html

He will no doubt argue that the magazine endorsement is based entirely on
it's anti-Bush sentiment rather than a smattering of pro-Kerry. And about
that, he will be correct. But, of course, he - yet again - misses the
point.

The article rather eloquently argues that the current President's
policies
are the very antithesis of traditional conservatism. That is the point.


The point is the American conservative isn't when it will sell out
conservative values in a plea for the lesser of 2 evils.

They should admit conservatives have no representation from either party.
The whole primary thing and the money required to wage a campaign has
totally corrupted our democracy. Voters don't get to choose our
president. Voters get to select from a whopping sample of two put forth by
the parties. The process of selection by the parties is broken.

The most anti-democratic process actions taken in this entire campaign has
been the Democratic Party's legal campaign to removed Ralph Nader from the
ballots. Its disgusting. Someone explain to me why a candidate for
federal office can be on ballots in some states and not in others? Supreme
court needs to fix this.

ScottW
I disagree, somewhat. Every candidate has to meet certain legal
requirements in each state to get on the ballot. The rules vary from state
to state but the Constitution allows it. The problem is that it's fairly
obvious that the states want to keep the list of candidates and parties as
small as they can and the smaller parties really don't have as much interest
from voters as the main 2. This doesn't mean they shouldn't loosen the
laws, indeed I think they should. It just means that AFAIK they are not
doing anything outside the Constitution.