On Third Parties And Hillary

Over a week ago, The Anchoress led the way:

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.

And all of this will cohttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifme about because the only person seemingly capable of beating the Clinton’s wasn’t a good enough Christian for the Christian right. I think it’s a mistake, folks. Create a third party in order to give yourselves a “good Christian” to vote for - one who doesn’t offend any of your principals - and you lose. And life loses, too.

Slublog echoes the effect on the pro-life movement that a third party--and Hillary presidency--would have for social conservatives.

The Daily Blogster agrees: take James Dobson's advice and you ensure Hillary's election.

Rocky Mountain Politics laments the attention to "perfection" that is crippling the GOP.

And Best Destiny puts it in the starkest terms--a Ginsberg in every open Supreme Court seat:

Picture Hillary's world: A Supreme Court with six Ginsbergs and Roberts, Alito and Thomas; a state department run in absentia by Bill; a military run by Wesley Clark; a national security team that includes Sandy Berger; and an economic team populated by disciples of George Soros.

Politics seldom involves ideal candidates or situations. These bloggers seem to grasp a fact that hard-line social conservatives seem to be missing: how does voting for a third party (essentially a vote for Hillary and a vote against the GOP's candidate) actually benefit the movement? Dobson believes it would fire up the troops--of course! That's because every hard-fought inch would be immediately conceded after a Hillary victory, and need to be regained.

Is that a price they are willing to pay for the illusion of "perfection"? Cutting off the moderate conservative nose to spite the social conservative face isn't likely to win much support; however in such razor-thin election environments, would a GOP repeat of the Al Gore/Ralph Nader or George H.W. Bush/Ross Perot situation really the most desirable outcome in 2008?