Around the blogosphere and on talk radio, we often hear about how a third party or independent vote is a "wasted" vote. I understand the rationale behind this very well, as I used to vote this way myself. In fact, in the situations I did vote that way, it may have even had merit. After all, the choices we had in 2000 and 2004 provided much greater differences than what we have now, based on what we knew at the time.

I mean, sure, we knew W was a bit liberal, but we also knew he had had serious success as governor of a VERY conservative state. He was pro-life, which is very important to us conservatives. He was a man with a vision ("America at its best") that was very positive, unlike either of his rivals, one of which was an America-hating enviro-Nazi whose vision for America was little better than a revivial of the Soviet Union on our own soil, and the other of which was a socialist coward who brazenly lied in congressional hearings about atrocities allegedly committed by US soldiers in Viet Nam as if he had been there - and we had a war to win.

Well today, that war continues, but the relative stability that has resulted from our victories has given the current crop of candidates the opportunity to argue over what to do next. President Bush has done little beyond bringing forth good judges and winning what he was willing to do with the war. Not that these two things are small, but neither was done in a manner that reflects the beliefs of conservatives on these matters.

So four years ago, it made sense to continue our support of President Bush because he had more or less earned a second term, and the alternative was very dangerous to the preservation of what freedom was left after so many decades of socialism. After all, a liberal Republican who listens to us (remember Harriet Miers?) is better than a socialist who listens to Michael Moore and Barbara Streisand.

Now I know Sage disagreed with this logic even then, but he did respect my postition as he always had before. This time around, however, I'm not sure it makes any sense to go with those same arguments. Here's why:

* Neither one of these candidates is willing to do what really needs to be done to win the war.

* Both are lying socialist nutbags who will run the American economy into the toilet in four years or less.

* Both claim to be independent of speical interests, which is a lie on both of their parts.

* Both advocate the illegal expansion of government into inappropriate areas.

* Both have track records of supporting legislation that deprives Americans of God-given constitutional rights, including those guaranteed by the First, Second, and Fifth Amendments, either directly, by association with individuals and/or groups which have said deprivation as their goals, or both.

* Any number of disqualifying factors unique to one or the other.

So voting for one for the purposes of keeping the other out is a joke this time around, simply because the differences between them are few and only a matter of "nuance".

As for whether voting for a candidate who has little or no chance of winning is unwise, wrong, or a "wasted" vote, I ask, what exactly is it when you vote for a candidate with whom you have little or nothing in common from an ideological standpoint? Who's really wasting his vote? The conservative who votes for a socialist asshelmet he knows is unacceptable, or the one who stands his ground and votes according to which candidate makes the most sense from that very ideological standpoint? Which is doing more to secure the unalienable rights for ourselves and our posterity?

Want to throw your vote away? Vote for someone you wouldn't want as your dog catcher. Just remember that until you grow a pair and vote for what YOU believe in and not some pie-in-the-sky bullshit about keeping out someone worse, you're part of the problem, not the solution.

RWR