So now it has come down to a battle of the Bonesmen. How did our major party choices get narrowed to candidates from a secret society of the super-elite with a morbid fascination with the symbols of death? The candidates well represent this devotion to death. One is the advocate of perpetual war. The other boasts of his fanaticism about the "right" to kill the unborn.

I weep for my country. Does the nation have a fatal attraction for responding to issues by killing people? Where is the option for those who love and respect life?

 -Bill Samuel

I'd vote for a consistent ethic ticket if one were available. I like to think CE activists don't offer voters an alternative to twin party candidates because they are too busy saving lives in their day to day activities to run for National office.

I'd hate to think the lack of National CE candidates is due to fear of "stealing votes" from the lesser of the electable "evils". Giving in to that fear does not insure that the less "evil" contender gets elected. It does not insure that the checks and balances of the system will permit the less "evil" contender to do what is right and prevent him from doing what is wrong even if he is elected. What it DOES do is prove the "less evil" twin party doesn't have to adjust its policies in a consistent ethic direction to win CE votes.

(BTW I'm not suggesting the "major" parties are identical twins or evil twins; I just don't see enough difference between them to vote for one out of fear of the other. However good their intentions, both seem resigned to the idea that some problems can only be reacted to by lethal means, and I can't vote for someone who does not seem obsessed with using or developing nonlethal solutions to our problems. )

I suppose we know what would be said about any CE activists who "steal votes" from twin party candidates (even if they are not official candidates, but simply announce they don't object to the use of their names as stand-in candidates for CE folk who wouldn't otherwise vote at all). Many on the left would say they and those who vote for them are really voting for Bush; and I suspect many on the right would say they are voting for Kerry. O! The shame!

I would say "so what?" in return. If the twin parties really thought each other's candidates were as "dangerous" or as "evil" as they say, they would support run-off elections or IRV. After all, the Presidents each side most loves to hate won their first terms in office by less than majorities (