My blog violates Newton’s Third Law.
“For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Bullcorn, and this post proves it. It took me 15 minutes to write four paragraphs about voting for McCain, which has so far resulted in 300-and-counting comments, a couple dozen long-ish emails, and a dozen or so incoming links, including an Instalanche. Reaction vastly outweighing the action. (But not all opposite - I’d say it’s a 50/50 split in the positions.)
I’m not complaining, I’m just overwhelmed. I’d give anything to have enough time to get as deep into this as I want to but as I so sweetly pointed out last week, I have a job. Can someone please find me a wealthy sponsor so I can quit that job? Thanks.
Anyway, I have shit to say.
First of all, I’m good and goddamn sick of the acrimony of this debate. I apologize if my post itself was snotty; I will try very hard in the future not to do that.
So: I said it in the comments and I’ll say it again: if you can’t make your argument without using insults and name-calling, then you need to shut the fuck up or take it to some other blog where they get off on that sort of behavior.
That goes for BOTH SIDES. Even if you agree with me that the won’t-vote-for-McCain folks have a bad plan, take a cue from me and refrain from calling those people whiny titty-babies or any variation thereof. They AREN’T whiny titty-babies, they are intelligent people who have made a decision based on what they think is right, and if that isn’t a good enough reason to afford them the respect of not calling them names, I don’t know what is. The plan is what I am attacking, not the people.
I’ve been doing this blog thing and reading other blogs for a long time, and there are a handful of reasons I sometimes stop reading other blogs even if I like the blogger. One of those reasons is when they let their comment sections turn into dirty fights. That repels me like almost nothing else and I simply won’t have it here on my own blog.
Also, it should go without saying since I’ve said it a hundred fucking times, but any comment that insults me or calls me any sort of unpleasant name WILL BE DELETED. I don’t give a flying turd if you want to explain how you disagree with me, which is so massively obvious if you’d just read all the other comments that very vehemently disagree with me, but I do give a flying turd about providing you the bandwidth to be an asshole to me on my own turf. This includes writing, “Rachel you’re full of shit,” or “I don’t give a shit what you think so bite me,” or “you are screeching spastically” and so on.
I don’t know how to be more clear about it: disagree all you want. Question my conclusions, my logic, my facts, whatever, but do it in a way that wouldn’t get you punched in the nuts by Rupert if you said it to my face in his presence.
A perfect example of how to manage this would be frequent commenter MightySamurai. He thinks I am utterly and completely wrong about this entire issue and quite a few others, and he has detailed that wrongness in dozens of comments over the last few months. But not once has he felt it necessary to mischaracterize my statements or my tone, to invite me to bite him, or to write anything else that made me want to punch him in the nuts, even though he is constantly telling me I am wrong. See? It’s just not that difficult.
And commenters like PhysicsGeek, who also vehemently disagrees with me but worries I’ll be pissed that he’s lost his temper a few times - I’m not talking about him, either. To respond to people who are calling you stupid and retarded by calling them raving jackasses is FINE. I want this distinction to be crystal clear: the people I’m busting ass on right now are those who pop into the comment threads and drop a dickhead bomb on me or someone they disagree with by saying shit along the lines of, “Those I disagree with are idiots and pussies.” Regulars like PhysicsGeek never do that, even when they lose their tempers. Which, I don’t even have language to express how much I appreciate that fact.
Second of all: some people need to work on their reading skills and mastery of archives. It’s a rookie mistake to make assumptions about a blogger based on one post when there’s a whole year of recent archives on the same subject that completely contradict your assumption. It’s your call but I’m trying to help you to not look like a fool here. For the edification of any new readers or other bloggers who want to comment on my posts about politics:
I AM NEITHER A REPUBLICAN NOR A CONSERVATIVE.
So stop saying I am unless you like saying things that are provably untrue. I understand that it’s hard for some to wrap their brains around because we’re all so used to label identification, but I do not belong to any party, I never vote straight-party tickets, and I don’t make decisions based on what party a candidate belongs to. It is true that the candidates that scare the shit out of me THE MOST are Democrats because they tend to be socialists and want to take my guns and want me to feel guilty for being white, but it’s also true that plenty of Republicans scare the shit out of me, too. I don’t “like” any of them. Not one.
Elections aren’t about liking candidates, they’re about what is going to happen to your city, county, state, and country based on what any given candidate will do once in office. I’ve never voted for anyone that I “liked” because there’s never anyone I “like” on the ballot. Particularly at the national level, the only options that have ever been on the ballot since 1990 when I turned 18 have been Shit and Shittier. I don’t like voting for Shit, but if I don’t, I’m enabling Shittier. I’d rather enable Shit than Shittier, seeing as how I don’t have any choices not involving Shit.
And that’s the third thing, this whole issue of lesser-of-two-evils. Seems to me this is the biggest barrier between a lot of us. Many of you who disagree with me keep saying that you simply refuse to vote for someone you genuinely do not support. I get that point, I truly do. I just see different results of applying it.
Some of you believe that in order to restore the Republican party to what you think it should be, you have to show them that you won’t support a RINO like McCain. Fine. But my question is, what data have you used to arrive at the conclusion that whatever Obama does in office will be so easily remedied the next time you get a conservative in office, or that the next time you have that chance, the candidate will be any less liberal than McCain? Whatever forces gave McCain the nomination this time around will very likely still be in place in 2012 and 2016.
And why do so many of you keep talking about “4 years from now” as your timetable for that awesome Reaganesque conservative in the wings? What makes you so sure Obama wouldn’t get reelected? Clinton and Bush both did, even though a good half of the country utterly despised each one of them. How can it be worth the price of 8 years of a raving socialist with almost zero experience and a harshly negative attitude towards people like you and me (bitter gun-clingers), because McCain is not “Republican” enough? Shit, it could end up being 16 years, depending on who he picks for VP.
Finally, regarding principles. I understand that some of you will not vote for McCain because of your principles, and I do not question your principles. I disagree with your conclusions about what will follow your application of them.
I have principles, too. One of those principles is that it is my duty to exercise my franchise as a registered voter, so I vote. But to me, voting for anyone other than one of the two who WILL BE the next president is pointless and would make me feel like I was wasting my franchise. I would not feel like I am being effective if I sit it out, vote only the down-ticket, vote third-party, or do a write-in because I know that there are only two people who can possibly be president at this point in time: the Democrat and the Republican.
I sit down just like you do and I evaluate how to apply my principles to the facts on the ground in order to arrive at the most desirable outcome. It’s never an actual desirable outcome, it’s more like the least undesirable outcome. The conclusion I have come to is that since I’m getting one of these assholes as my next president, my principles dictate that I must do whatever I can to make sure the bigger asshole loses because I do not have faith that allowing the most liberal Senator in the country to become president for 4-8 years will be less horrible than allowing a measurably less liberal Senator to do the same.
Particularly when I consider national security. But that’s only my choice and I see no reason to assault anyone else on a personal level because they make a different choice, as long as they’re doing so according to their principles, which based on my readers’ opposing comments, are sound principles even if they differ in application from mine.
Like I said in the other post, I could very well be wrong about this entire thing and it wouldn’t be the first time. I don’t for a goddamn minute think that anyone who has given this as much thought as I have and came to a different conclusion is a retard, dumbass, butthole, or anything else like that. In fact I respect you for giving it any thought at all, which is more than can be said for 99% of the voters in this country. I respect how intelligently most of you frame your arguments and I even respect how you will not back down no matter what I say, because you feel in your guts that you’re right, just like I do.
We need more of that gut-trusting, even if we disagree, because ultimately, our goals are all the same here. We want hard-left liberals to stop fucking up America, we want the hard-leftward shift to come to a screeching halt because we believe that shift is dangerous. You don’t have to be a right-winger to feel that way and I am living proof of that. If half of us think we can accomplish the same goal one way and the other half think we can accomplish it another way, I don’t see that as a bad thing. If we all had the exact same plan and that plan turned out to be wrong, we would be screwed.
Rock on, Rachel! One warning though — don’t tempt MightySamurai. He may very well want you to bite him. Rawr.
(I kid, Rupert, I kid!)
May 29th, 2008 at 10:10 amVery nicely put. I have been reading your blog for quite some time now and your posts have provided some well thought out positions. Unfortunately, I find that there are too many people who find it necessary to attack others instead of actually participating in a discussion. I fear some are afraid they might change their mind.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:16 amGreat essay.
this country is in danger of slipping to the hard Left even as countries like France and the Czech Republic are heading the other way. France’s Sarkozy is pushing for massive gas tax cuts, and Czech Republic’s Klaus is lecturing the US and the entire world on the grave threat from the Climate Change crowd, and believes this is Communism with a new face. And having grown up in a Soviet satellite, I think he’s qualified to speak on the subject.
No matter who is elected here in America, we’re in for a rough decade. Hold on to your butts.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:26 amIt’s one thing to confuse Shiite’s and Shia’s (I was there for over a year and could never keep them straight name-wise.) but it is another thing entirely to habitually “misspeak,” “misremember” or confuse a relative as uncle, grandfather, great uncle, or whatever. Much as President Clinton did, I think Obama tells people what they want to hear. The change he speaks of is whatever the current polling numbers say it should be. McCain on the other hand has pretty much stuck to his guns no matter what half of his party thinks. As you so succinctly put it Rachel it comes down to pretty much a gut feeling. And my gut tells me that Obama has none of the qualities that are needed to be president. Wherever he got a reputation as a great speaker is beyond me. I’ve seen PFC’s speak with more authority and poise to a general officer than Obama has ever shown. I think it comes down to the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t.
Also, does anyone else get pissed off like I do when President Bush is referred to as either “Mr. Bush” or worst of all just “Bush” by the media? Didn’t it used to be that the president was always referred to as “President” regardless of circumstance? As much as I loathed President Clinton I still refer to him as President. I don’t recall him ever being called “Clinton” with malice in the voice. Maybe it’s just me.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:37 amRachel,
In as much as I am to blame for the flame war, I am sorry.
I will NOT apologize however, to the whiny-titty-babies who are voting for Obama ( by not voting for McCain)
Of course, I’m joking. Point taken.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:39 amOnce someone in the comments says “nazi, butthole etc” I just scroll over. I don’t read the rest of the comment, because sweetie, if that’s all you got…you’ve just LOST the debate. I have better things to do with my time than to read your juvenile whining, thankyouverymuch.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:39 amI always read mightysamuri and physics geek and your regular posters, because they are thoughtful, civil and usually contain a laugh or two.
I stumbled on to your site and totally enjoy it. I love your affection for the canine species, as well as those of who are wearing or wore the camo. And you are correct on both points, civility has gone out of the debate, plus I think sitting this one out because you don’t like McCain is the same as voting for Obama. Heck, I voted in my state’s primary (Kentucky) and I am Republican
May 29th, 2008 at 10:41 amThis is a great post, Rachel. Really well done.
This is my favorite part:
That is downright fair as fair can be.
Could not ask for anything more.
We all want the same thing. We’re like the clannish Scots fighting amongst ourselves until we come together against a common enemy. I said this in the other thread: “after the election we’re all going to be on the same side again - fighting Obama with whatever balls the Republican Party has left over.” And you know what, it may not be the rotten Republican Party that survives, it may be a whole new party. But no matter - we’ll be fighting Obama TOGETHER. We are really all on the same side. It would behoove the hysterical name-callers to remember that.
As for you, Rachel, you are probably the fairest-minded blogger I’ve ever come across. Even when we fundamentally disagree, I weigh your words - even your pissy fits
- very carefully, and take everything into account. Such is my respect for you.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:45 amThanks for the kind words. I like being part of the mix here and I’m glad that I haven’t gone over the top here. If you ever think that I have, let me know. As I mentioned, I have a short fuse at times.
I do have to respond to one thing, though:
“…since 1990 when I turned 18″
I won’t mention how old I turned in 1990 except to say that 18 was very distant in my rearview mirror. Sigh. I do seem to remember you turning 30/31 back in your prior incarnation, so it’s not really news to me. It just seems that everyone around me is getting younger. Me getting older seems impossible, so it must be the former that’s happening, despite its seeming impossibility. Reminds me of how old I thought Playboy centerfolds were when I was growing up. Then I was their age. Now they could be my daughters. With children of their own.
You are dead on in your thoughts that we are on the same side here. We have mostly the same goals for this country and, despite our disagreements on how to get there at times, I know that we’ll have each others’ backs during the rough times that I, unfortunately, see ahead, regardless of who wins this November. So anyway, thanks for letting us play.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:46 amI’m stealing this one for future use.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:47 amYikes, giving Mighty Samurai the green light annoys me to no end. I can’t pretend otherwise. He may not stoop to the levels that some of your commenters do, but he is consistently rude, arrogant and insulting in his comments. I will not be dazzled with his hyperbole and slick-talking manner and I’m really surprised that you singled him out as an example. I find it truly frightening that he should in any way be lauded as someone to emulate. But I digress.
Regardless of my personal views on that, I must say that yours is the only blog that I read and go out of my way to read the comments for the very fact that you don’t let it turn into a mud-slinging forum. You really do have the most thoughtful and intelligent readers on the web (myself not included) and it’s a pleasure to be a fan.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:47 amExcellent column, Rachel. It’s kind of scary how often I agree with what you say.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:58 amIt occurs to me that, if the people who are going to sit this election out or write in a candidate, or vote for a third party candidate as a way to show the “conservative-lite” voters how much they need the “real conservative” base, there may be unintended consequences. If McCain wins (and there is a better than even chance that will occur), the people who elected him will be able to say that they did it without the “base” - so who needs them. And, if hussein wins, and the US starts a long and possibly irreversable trip down the crapper, the people who were abandoned by the “base” (when they could have made a difference) are going to look at the “real conservative base” as untrustworthy and wonder why they should support them or their ideologically pure candidate (who, I suppose, will magically appear to save us all in four years).
In either case, the “true conservatives” are going to end up being further marginalized and their judgement and reliability trusted less.
As for me, I have to do what I believe will be the best for the country and try to elect the person who will probably do the least damage to America. In the end, I guess we can each only do what we believe to be right.
Rachel:
You had me months ago at “Five-Bite-Dog vs. Eight-Bite-Dog”.
“Five-Bite Dog” has my vote all locked up. I’m even considering money, volunteering, etc…[shudder]
May 29th, 2008 at 11:08 amThe comments section for me is a big part of a blog. I loved Megan McCardles comment section when she ran her own blog, when she moved to blogging for the Atlantic, she got a bigger, but ruder, audience. As a result, I don’t read her as often.
And, if you’re still not tired of the debate over what a 3rd party vote might do, check out some analysis the guys at Reason have done.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:18 amI stayed quiet (as hard as that is for me) on the other thread since I am NOT franchised … I get to pay more than my “fair share” of taxes but I’m not allowed to vote (legally).
May 29th, 2008 at 11:22 amHowever, since you brought up the whole franchise question, it immediately brought to my mind … what franchise are YOU talking about? Constitutionally (so far at least) you have no marshmallow in the fire … the president is elected SOLELY by the electoral college. True, they generally stick with the voters. But … constitutionally your vote for POTUS counts as much as mine.
Hmmm … I wonder if we could convince the Electoral College to appoint someone other than the three currently vying for the role … LOL … maybe you should be a mass mailing to the EC members Sunny’s picture??
Amen Rachel. I agree, as usual. Rarely in any election is there someone I want to vote for, but in nearly every election there is someone I want to make damn sure to vote against. I will never cast a vote for Sen Hopechange. He obviously holds me in utter disdain. He insults my intelligence and expects that I won’t look past the glitter. BS! I don’t like BO and no amount of pretty perfume will cover it up.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:31 amIt’s really just a question of simple logic, and it amazes me that seemingly otherwise-intelligent people can’t see that taking their ball and going home will accomplish nothing but getting a scary-stupid leftist ideologue elected, a guy who has the potential to not only screw up the economy, but get one of our cities nuked.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:37 amWell freaking said, Rachel. I’m one of those folks who has disagreed without about McCain pretty much from the very beginning and we’ve even traded a couple blog posts about the subject.
So far as I can see, though, you are the only blogger I’ve yet found who is both a McCain supporter and willing to engage me even a little bit on the subject. I’ve written to a few big bloggers who are more in the tank for McCain than you (though for very much the same reasons) and I never get so much as a twitch from any of them. I appreciate that you took the time and showed me enough respect to consider what I said and to share it with others, even though you disagreed with my conclusions.
That, among many things, makes you one of my favorite bloggers and a damned fine human being.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:43 amWhere do I take my Cabal of comment killers now? Can we all just get along? I’m right, everyone else is a poophead!
May 29th, 2008 at 11:43 amI think the Mr. Bush thing is a NYT type of thing where they always refer to people with the title. Otherwise I think you might be right that there is a level of disrespect given to him by the media that was never shown towards Clinton. But that’s not really surprising since they believe him to have stolen elections along with their general disdain of anything not liberal and fitting their agenda.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:49 amRachel- I love your blog. When things get too heated, you can always cool it down with an entertaining post of “dumb things I do” which has far too few posts!! Those make me laugh the most…. no offense. It’s just nice to know I’m not the only one….
May 29th, 2008 at 11:51 amObviously I’m doing a poor job of explaining my position since I do not in any way see it as “taking my ball and going home”. I see it as an affirmative expression of what I believe is best for this country and conservatism, in that order. I will admit to taking a somewhat longer view than the current election cycle, so I understand why you might that attitude unappealing or even inexplicable. However, the idea that I’m a “whiny titty-baby” is, while amusing, dead wrong.
Here’s a question that I have for some of you who have been, umm, less than polite in your labeling of those of us like Mighty Samurai, Redhead Infidel and I who disagree with you: is the reason that you’re so vehement and disagreeable simply because you think that McCain is likely to lose and you’re preemptively trying to find a scapegoat? Really, I’m curious; this is not a facetious question. And to those of you who do agree with me, why are some of you acting like pissants towards those on Rachel’s side? Is everyone simply trying to play the blame game before the election, so that no matter how it turns out, it will be someone else’s fault? Again, I’m genuinely curious.
I’ll offer one final thought about this election: my sister and brother-in-law are two of the finest people I’ve ever known. In fact, I’d be honored to know them even if I weren’t related to them. And they are so conservative that they make me look like Chairman Mao. They are both completely dead set against voting for McCain. While it’s an anecdote, and I know that the plural is not data, I’m got a sneaking suspicion that the anyone but McCain emotions are more deep-seated and widespread than most believe. However, the Obamamessiah isn’t showing himself ready for primetime, so he may yet snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:52 amBased on what do you think this nation is about to go hard-left? The Obamaniacs? They’re just very vocal. The rest of us “hard-working shmucks” can’t go to political rallies. AKA “the silent majority” of centre-right.
Another thing I noticed about left-wingers is that they are so filled with a sense of self-righteousness that any rudeness on their part is considered OK. By themselves that is. Basic humility and decency are only reserved for the ideologically pure. Not us subhumans.
BTW, Rachel for POTUS in 2020? Need to start up an exploratory committe….
May 29th, 2008 at 12:05 pmSgt K,
May 29th, 2008 at 12:09 pmWhen I was in, lo those many years (decades) ago we called the President “Uncle Ronnie”.
Rachel, you do rock.
You have a great ability (laser-like vision) to cut through the BS (which is abundant) to the heart of any matter. You are a gift to those who still can use their brains in a time of many confusing messages.
And LOVE the doggles.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:10 pmGreat, now I have to frame my arguments intelligently.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:12 pmI think McCain is likely to lose simply because I think when it comes down to it, more “conservatives” will vote with their integrity intact against him. Dems are programmed to vote the party line, win at all costs, so I feel less of them will not vote Obama.
The issue I find most troubling is what exactly will provide the kick in the nuts to the GOP and RINO’s to pull their heads out of their asses and stop selling out? Continuing to vote for them and hope they start listening? Hand a crushing defeat and live wtih the socialist consequences? Jimmah managed to fuck us over pretty successfully in 4 years so it can happen, especially with a Dem House and Senate.
The most frustrating anger inducing point to this is “I don’t fucking know what the answer is!” And it scares the hell out of me. I can’t afford a socialist takeover.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:18 pmRachel, you are wrong. JUST KIDDING…JUST KIDDING!
I enjoy reading your blog whether I disagree with you or not, and I do have both reactions. Even when I disagree, however, I like the way you defend your points.
Regarding your personal decision that your vote is too important to waste, I agree. Although I do not support Clinton, Obama or McCain, I will be writing in Ron Paul if he is not already on my ballot. I suspect that you and I only differ on the question of what is a “wasted” vote.
Your definition means I will “waste” my vote, my definition means I will not. My definition (since you supplied yours I owe you mine) is to vote for the person with the best track record of following the precepts and principles envisioned by the founding fathers as I understand these precepts and principles from my research. (I own and read copies of both “The Federalist Papers” and “The Anti-Federalist Papers”, for example.)
For me personally, that means of all the persons currently having their hat somewhere in the ring, that person is Ron Paul.
You define the proper use of your vote one way, and you made that understandably clear in your blog. I respect you for that. I think from watching your blog for a while that I can count on your respecting my having a different definition for the proper use of my vote even though we disagree on the effect of that difference.
Best regards!
May 29th, 2008 at 12:24 pmMost elections, even local, are like voting between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich from South Park. Sometimes it is just choosing who is the least worst of the bunch.
A local state politician, supposedly a conservative, just sent out a missive on how he got a local tax, one the voters could say not to renew, changed into a state tax, one the legislature controlled, and how it was good for the children. Locally controlled meant if the money wasn’t being spent properly we could get rid of it. Now it will stay forever. He also championed a smoking ban and says it doesn’t go far enough.
His opposition in the next election is running on more state control and taxes and his being a Democrat. So my choice for this position is between the Douche and a Turd. I could write someone in but either of these will win.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:35 pmmgnmfrc1: I don’t think that Obama will get 4 full years to screw up the country. With the new media in place, he gets maybe 2-3 months of a honeymoon to do his damage before political pushback renders him a lame-duck. Assuming he doesn’t correct his ultra-left wing behavior by then.
eeyore: There are no more conservative Republicans. Only socialists as far as the eye can see.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:36 pmI did start my comments before by calling others liars. I did this due to my anger over the orders, the name calling and misrepresentatins of my motives for not voting for McCain that always appear during this type of discussion. Note I did not say I’m voting for Obama and it’s is a lie to say I’m effectively voting for Obama.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:37 pmI apoligize for my name calling.
I am still puzzled what the McCain supporters are doing about congress - another third of the federal government. No one seems to think the presidential election will have an effect on congress this election or any future election. I seriously believe that the Repub party will continue to bleed congressional seats in the house and senate while running RINOs and Dem-lite candidates. Can the senate Repubs lose 11 seats and give the Dems 60 total this election? Not likely, but when is the time to worry about it? After people are sick of what happens under a new ‘Repub’ president and gives the congress a veto proof Dem senate and house. That is too late. The seats in the senate take too long to switch. I would like there to be the same amount of thought about congress and our future government as there is for the president.
Again, I’m not voting for McCain. Recovering from him will take too long and the senate and house might be completely lost by then. Any further thoughts on this topic?
Sorry for the length.
It’s an interesting conundrum for conservatives. What happens if McCain wins without some of the conservative base? It means that they can safely be ignored. Trust me, the GOP is interested in victory first, agenda second.
So there’s the conundrum, vote for McCain and you get what he is. Don’t vote for him and he still manages to win, self-marginalization.
McCain can easily win with some of Clinton’s voters.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:43 pmFreedomlover,
I do believe we are heading Left, quickly. The GOP is trying to out-Democrat the Democrats. Neither party will address the border issue. Both parties have drunk the Green Kool-Aid of Gorebal Warmening, the most massively successful hoax in my lifetime, and perhaps in human history. Our Gaia worshipping Greenies have successfully stymied our own energy production capablities with tools like the EPA, the Endangered Species Act, upcoming mandates on light bulbs, and the goddamn Ethanol disaster. Plus they offer us “solutions” that will never, ever replace petroleum in sheer volume, like wind, solar, Happy-Sunny-Fun-Thoughts, and vegetable oil.
This country is going the wrong way very quickly. It’s going to take a long time to fix our self-imposed problems. I’m optimistic this will happen, but I’m not crazy about facing a long dark period of malaise and pessimism. Not to mention that a toothless, weakened superpower is a huge enticement to the jackals at our doorstep.
Jus’ sayin’.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:49 pmPaleo:
I think the lack of nuclear energy plants has more to do with NIMBYism then the greenies. IMHO, you give too much power/credit to the far-left in this country. They are only 33%.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:55 pm(Here are points for a new guy…) Why couldn’t you be a cat person? Oh dogs are fine (we have 2), but cats are so much more interesting.
I don’t really have much more to say about the actual subject, I have always voted Libertarian even when scary Kerry seemed a threat, though I generally cheer for the Republican. I do not think of it as a wasted vote because, other parties have fallen before and they only do when there is enough clamor for it. As long as there are large groups willing to vote ‘better than the alternative’ change won’t happen.
How can anyone still call conservatives a Republican ‘base’ much less traitors to such? So you won’t ‘trust’ a conservative to vote for a liberal, what is your point? For the people who said ‘why should we vote for your conservative’ in the next election, that seems a ludicrous position. If you do not believe in conservative ideals, you shouldn’t! If you do, then it would be ludicrous to not vote for him because people were more conservative than you in the last election.
Look big picture, conservatives are not anyone’s base at the moment. Saying they are does not make it so.
Thank you so much Rachel for the care and involvement you put in to your blog. You are definitely cooler than the average cat. (If I were Obama I would definitely have said dog for the pandering factor, but you’ll just have to accept that it is a bigger compliment from me this way)
May 29th, 2008 at 12:56 pmI’ve always likened commenting on a blog to being invited to a party at someone else’s house.
If you’re invited to a house party, you NEVER badmouth the host or hostess no matter how much you might disagree with them. Never. Never ever ever.
Don’t even disagree with them if you can avoid it (the other guests, maybe, but never the host/hostess). If the party is not to your liking or the host/hostess offends you, go back to your own damn house and host your own damn party.
And if you absolutely MUST argue with the host/hostess, go to extreme lengths to maintain the highest level of respectability. Because if you don’t, they WILL throw you out of their house. The only time I can remember explicitly disagreeing with Rachel herself was on an abortion thread, and it was mostly because I just didn’t understand the logic behind her point.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:58 pmmightysamurai:
Or else Rachel will sic Sunny on em, That’ll make em run in terror…
May 29th, 2008 at 1:02 pmI’ve voted the third-party line in the past, and will probably vote third-party on some local candidates in the upcoming election - when you know that the candidate you despise less has no serious chance of winning, you’re not going to lose anything by voting someone you like.
McCain-Obama is not in that category. Obama is scaring just enough people where McCain has a surprisingly decent shot at actually winning this thing. Obama is strong with African-Americans and college kids. The rest of America has been scared (or at least extremely skeptical of their viewpoints) of both of those groups since the ’60s. That’s why McGovern lost to Nixon and why Dukakis lost to Bush I.
I don’t like a lot of McCain’s positions, past or present. I think McCain-Feingold was a big mistake. I think his domestic policies lean more towards Nixon than Reagan (that’s not a good thing). I also think, like you, that Obama’s positions are orders of magnitude worse. As Glenn points out from time to time, you vote for the politicians on the ballot, not the politicians you want on the ballot. I’ll also point out that a large swath of “Democrats” have voted their conscience at the expense of their party for quite a while - we call them the Green Party. If most of the people that voted for Nader voted for Kerry instead, we wouldn’t be talking about Bush’s second term.
I do think that, if you’re in a state where a particular candidate is a foregone conclusion (Idaho, Utah, Massachusetts, Vermont, etc.), there’s absolutely nothing wrong with voting your conscience. Write in Ron Paul, write in Sunny, vote for Bob Barr, whatever - it’s not going to make a difference and it’ll get your point across. However, if you’re living in a swing state (which I am - NV), it would definitely behoove you to choose the candidate that comes closest to your positions while having a realistic chance of winning your state. Otherwise, you’re just doing your part to guarantee a more undesirable fate for your country than the one you really want.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:18 pmWhile I do think this country is swinging generally leftwards over time (though “hard-left” might be a bit of an overstatement) you’re probably right about the Obamanites.
Obama’s main support seems to come from two places. Black people and very young, very passionate liberals. You know, like the Obama Girl. The problem is that neither of these two groups can be counted on to send Obama to the White House. Black people, whether the race baiters want to admit it or not, only make up 13% of the population (and only 12% when you exclude “Black Hispanics”, whatever that means). As for young people, they aren’t exactly the most reliable voters in the world. They show up en masse to campaign rallies and political demonstrations (especially when they’re promised free food, beer, and entertainment) and they are notoriously passionate in their political views, but when election day rolls around they suddenly realize they’ve got better things to do than stand in line all day to vote.
Even the Obama Girl herself admits that she missed the presidential primaries on Super Tuesday. She claims she was “sick” that day, but was apparently healthy enough to attend an election results party that same night and interview voters in New York the day before.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:28 pmMaybe so, but I would argue that this is exactly why the Democratic Party has shifted further and further toward the extreme left over the years.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:33 pmFreedomlover,
You’re right about the NIMBY crowd, and I can add the BANANA crowd to that..”Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.” But I believe that the rush to prevent any kind of domestic power, nuclear, oil, anything is thnaks to them as well as the Liberals, who speak for all the ninnyhammers and helicopter parents and gullible morons in this country.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:51 pmY’ALL ARE A BUNCH OF KNUCKLE-BREATHING MOUTH-DRAGGERS!!1!!1
Oh, wait… Talk about mixing your metaphors… and breaking the rules…
In seriousness:
See, there’s the difference. I don’t know about anyone else, but I definitely take Congress into account, and that’s the main reason I AM voting for McCain, because both sides of Congress going to have a Dem majority, whether it’s filibuster- or veto-proof or not. If we can’t have both Congress and the White House, then I want ONE to be Republican, even if it’s a RINO like McPain. I’m of the opinion that the Republicans won’t fight a Democrat President, because they will have gotten the wrong message (again) from a large contingent refusing to vote for the Republican candidate, and will move even FURTHER to the Left.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:51 pmI would like to bounce a thought off you all, in as nice a manner as I can. I had this thought whilst listening to Rush Limbaugh explain why he’s part of the “Scorched Party” plan of not supporting McCain.
Here we go:
We’re probably all aware of Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos”, where he proposed we all vote in the Democrat Primary for Senator Clinton, the strategy being that she was the most beatable opponent against any of the Republican opponents.
It’s pretty well documented that the Democrats pulled an “Operation Chaos” of thier own by voting in early Republican primaries, giving Senator McCain a hard start out of the gates.
Some have argued that they were choosing thier favorite Republican, just in case he won, but I wonder if they didn’t pick the candidate they knew we wouldn’t vote for, ensuring a victory for the Democrats. Couple this White House victory with a win in the Senate and House, and the “fairness” doctrine would be all but revived by the time the next election rolls around, making our chances to defeat them in 2012 nearly impossible.
With that line of thinking, it seems like none of us even has a choice who our next President is, as the Democrats have made the choice for us, (the anti-liberals) and we have no choice but to sit back and take it.
We are basically powerless against the Liberals.
Our principles are too strong to vote for McCain, so basically there is nothing we can do to stop them. Is that what I’m hearing?
If this is what’s happening when we’re trying to oppose the Socialists, imaging what will happen in 4 years when we can’t resist.
I don’t think I like this scenario.
My post is awating moderation and I didn’t even curse this time!
May 29th, 2008 at 2:01 pmWithout returning to the argument that inspired this post (had my say, STFU when I started repeating myself), just a few observations…
Based on what do you think this nation is about to go hard-left?
Frustrated Democrats with majorities (perhaps veto-proof) in both House and Senate, a somewhat transcendant left wing in the party, several years of a demonized GOP prez, and a potential incoming left-liberal President without much meaningful experience in national-level hardball, one who promises to go along to get along. Last time those conditions prevailed, we got Jimmeh Carter, and we’re still paying that price. QED–it’s an eminently reasonable assumption that the elected part of the federal government will push hard left. There is NO assurance that we’ll get that Reagan four years from now. History does not really repeat itself…it plays encores. And if Reagan hisself were elected this fall, he’d still be fighting uphill against that potentially veto-proof Congress.
I’ll offer one final thought about this election: my sister and brother-in-law are two of the finest people I’ve ever known. In fact, I’d be honored to know them even if I weren’t related to them. And they are so conservative that they make me look like Chairman Mao.
It is easy when arguing politics to forget that the people on the other side are not evil demons salivating at the thought of roasting and consuming newborn infants. This applies no matter which side you’re on. Most are reasonably decent people you would be happy to have as neighbors and/or friends. (I’m not talking about the politicians themselves, they HAVE to posture to stay in office, but about the electorate in general.)
I’ve worked in RealPolitik for a quarter of a century or more–some of the people I like and admire most are diametrically opposed to me on many many issues. We have lunch together, go to each other’s parties, and so on. I may think they’re very misguided on those issues, but they are not even remotely evil. If folks Sam Brownback and Chuckie Schumer can get together for regular friendly lunches to plot cooperative ways to disrupt global human trafficking, well, we can get a clue from that.
May 29th, 2008 at 2:03 pmIf we can’t have both Congress and the White House, then I want ONE to be Republican
I have never noticed that having both houses and the White House held by the same party has EVER produced any lasting good. The GOP demonstrated that most recently, confirming the trend.
May 29th, 2008 at 2:06 pmRespectfully, I think you underestimate the sheer amount of party loyalty there is in Washington DC.
May 29th, 2008 at 2:35 pmUp until probably two months ago, I was firmly in the “anyone but McCain” camp, for a number of reasons, not least of which his position on the border.
As a former San Diegan, now new Texan, that’s a serious issue for me. Amnesty is one of those things that cannot be undone.
However, consideration of what cannot be undone by four (or eight) years of an Obama administration is enough to move me from pissed and intransigent re: not voting for McCain to, as one poster here said, “it’s a shitty plan, but it’s all I got”.
.
May 29th, 2008 at 2:38 pmAs for the meat of Rachel’s post, I lean towards MightySamurai’s definition of House Rules.
Working for the paper I get to talk to a lot of county and city office-holders on a regular basis. They’re fairly evenly divided between Republicans, Democrats and Independents but they are all tend to be more conservative than our state and federal representation. It seems the further from their base politicians get the more variance in their positions compared to their constituents’.
May 29th, 2008 at 2:41 pmI think it’s due to the ‘out of sight-out of mind’ attitude some folks have, that and the anonymity of strangers. If you know someone it is hard (unless you have no empathy) to intentionally inflict pain on them even when you disagree. If you don’t know them there isn’t as much reticence.
I think that also applies to blogs. People who feel anonymous don’t have any reason to hold back and treat people courteously, unless the blogger moderates the comments. Of all the blogs I visit I think Rachel does the best job of moderating her comments section. I like going over to Misha’s place and seeing what people are up to but it is almost too easy to get into the name-calling and mud-slinging (I admit to a some of that myself.)
Three cheers for Rachel and her awesome moderation!
I sincerely hope you’re right.
May 29th, 2008 at 2:41 pmGreat post Rachel. This is why I check you daily. While I do disagree with you occasionally, you always try to state your reasoning clearly, and are open to well reasoned arguments.(Plus I love the doggies, wish you had cats too, but can’t have everything.)
I must however, disagree with the poster who says:
That title goes to the Anchoress, hands down. You get 2nd place on that
May 29th, 2008 at 2:55 pmPara
You are mistaken about the reason for “Operation Chaos”
Rush has explained it many times. He thought Obama was going to get the nomination from the first, because the democrat party will NEVER alienate their african-American base.
The ONLY way Obama would get trashed politically was for the democrats to do it themselves, and the only way for that to happen, was for Clinton to remain in the race. Had she dropped out, would we have heard about Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Rezco, his affiliation with ACORN, of Michelle-ma-belle with her obvious America hating rhetoric?
The longer Clinton stays in, the more she trashes Obama.
Operation Chaos has done exactly what Rush said it would. It allowed Clinton to do the work that the Republicans just won’t do.
McCain won’t run ads against Obama, and has already had campaign workers quit his campaign, rather than run against Obama.
It’s gonna be a long summer.
May 29th, 2008 at 4:08 pmWhiny titty baby? I don’t whine!
May 29th, 2008 at 4:12 pmWe’re probably all aware of Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos”, where he proposed we all vote in the Democrat Primary for Senator Clinton, the strategy being that she was the most beatable opponent against any of the Republican opponents.
Actually the premise was that the longer the Democratic primaries dragged on, the better it was for the GOP candidates. That the Democrat’s infighting was in and of itself a Good Thing for the GOP, regardless of the winner.
It’s pretty well documented that the Democrats pulled an “Operation Chaos” of thier own by voting in early Republican primaries, giving Senator McCain a hard start out of the gates.
“Documented” by whom, and how? Because that many voters crossed over to vote for McCain in NH and SC was not a planned operation. Moderates and centrists (especially non-aligned indies in the open-primary states) saw no chance to push in Clinton, so they went to the other side of the ticket. (They were wrong in NH, but that’s hindsight–at election time the polls indicated an Obama landslide, and NH has always loved McCain.)
Looking over the returns from open vs. closed primary states, the pattern that should be there for a flip-side OC to be true just doesn’t seem to be there. McCain’s big wins that secured him the nomination were closed-primary winner-take-all states, where intentional cross-over voting is minimized by structure. At best, in those states independents could supply some swing, but not the opposing party. For Democrats to give McCain any swing in those states would have required party-switching many weeks ahead of time. Basically Romney failed to pick off the New England states he had to have, got stomped in the Midwest because Huckabee was still in it, then got utterly routed by McCain in the big Super Tuesday winner-take-all plums of CA and NY.
Operation Chaos, by contrast, was devised post-Super Tuesday and was aimed directly at states with open primaries and was meant to take advantage of the Democrat’s proportional-delegate system to prolong the primaries, and the results show the effect.
May 29th, 2008 at 4:25 pmTully,
Fine, I don’t think we’re in disagreement here. Operation Chaos was supposed to , well, create chaos in the Democrat party, and essentially weaken it.
As for where to find the documented cases of Democrats voting for McCain, I emplore you to query those folks who have thrown this factoid into the mix with great fervor over the past few days as an excellent reason McCain deserves only the votes of the stupid.
According to several people here, the ONLY reason McCain even got the nomination is because the Dems voted for him, nto because he’s the real “representative”of the conservative wing of the Republican party.
So which is it?
I happen to believe that operation chaos was a RESPONSE to the tactical advantage the Dems had secured by voting McCain in the early primaries.
Still, it is pretty obvious that McCain does not have the support of the Republican party, which he would need to beat the Messiah,Obama.
Isn’t this just what the Democrats wanted? Essentially, didn’t they pick our nominee for us, and since we’re so “principled”, they know we could not vote for anyone right of Reagan, so they basically made our choice for us.
They chose Obama, and worked to get us a nominee who would not meet our principles. They outsmarted us.
It’s pretty obvious my thoery must be true, since NOBODY admits to voting for McCain in the Republican primary, and only begrudgingly will vote (with nose held) for him in the fall.
May 29th, 2008 at 5:59 pmI love it when Rachel gets excited. I recall those younger days when her profanity was…less restrained. But even still, the shadows her words cast! They thunder across the startled mob and depart leaving a lilac scent and faint ringing in the ears.
Sadly, I think I like the rants best. Even more than the daily dog. They jolt my idle thoughts and, I suppose, like everyone else posting comments, I find I need to consider my position. But, having seen SDB leave the blogosphere due to web craziness I don’t feel any impulse to churn Rachel’s work. I love the way she writes and many of the subjects she chooses. I am feeling conflicted about this as a) I like the rants, b) often the rants are due to comment posters’ abusing the privilege, and c) a one time favorite, SDB, abandoned the medium for some of the same reasons Rachel is ranting on here and that seems kind of threatening a repeat of a loss to the medium.
Yikes!
May 29th, 2008 at 6:27 pmHuzzah for Rachel — wittiest, grittiest lady in the blogosphere!
May 29th, 2008 at 6:34 pmThe Boss and I have been fans since her first blog incarnation. Recently I overcame my shyness and began my own feeble attempts at joining in the dialogue here precisely because of the level of discourse. As others have pointed out, it’s a rare treat to find so much civility and reason in a comment section!
Thanks to all who have been kind enough to engage my efforts — hope you won’t mind if I keep shoving in my oar :). And thanks, as always, to Rachel, for general awesomeness!
Rachel…I’ve been married 34 years. I have learned the two word response that keeps the peace:
“Yes, Dear”
Great post!
May 29th, 2008 at 6:39 pmBe careful! I live perilously close to Charlottesville, VA, and I can tell you that there is a sizable contingent of ‘Birkenstock Castrati’ — middle-aged, white, professional, liberal men — who can’t wait to vote for Obama (I think it may have something to do with their marital relations — just sayin’).
May 29th, 2008 at 6:52 pmAm I the only one who flashed on that scene from Kill Bill?
“As your leader, I encourage you from time to time, and always in a respectful manner, to question my logic. If you’re unconvinced that a particular plan of action I’ve decided is the wisest, tell me so, but allow me to convince you and I promise you right here and now, no subject will ever be taboo. Except, of course, the subject that was just under discussion. The price you pay for bringing up either my Chinese or American heritage as a negative is… I collect your fucking head. Just like this fucker here. Now, if any of you sons of bitches got anything else to say, now’s the fucking time!”
May 29th, 2008 at 7:38 pmi will vote for McCain over Obama. I don’t like McCain’s stance on the majority of issues - but i don’t like Obama’s stance on nearly all of the issues. I would have preferred a more conservative candidate (teh Fred! or Romney - hell, i’d even take the combover from New York), but McCain resonated with enough voters to get the nomination. i’m reading a lot of posts that seem to think that the only reason we got McCain is because the dems screwed us in the primaries. There may be a little something to that, but i don’t see it as being the preeminent consideration. After all, McCain was nearly bankrupt last summer, and ended up making some serious loot before the nomination was even close to wrapped up. Unless you all think that the dems were bankrolling McCain’s campaign as well, i think we need to realize that the majority of the people in the center/right-center, and even on the right, liked McCain more than any of the others. it seems, to me at least, that if the conservative base doesn’t agree with the de facto Republican base (which appears to be the case here), then the conservative base has nothing to prove by voting third party or sitting out the election. The Republicans aren’t going to get any message that you are trying to send, because they are already listening to those who are supporting them. My feeling is that you can pony up and vote for McCain and hope for a better candidate the next time around after McCain, or sit it out or vote third party and… well… hope for a better candidate the next time around after Obama - which would be after, of course, we give Tehran nuclear power, pay a paltry 70% income tax, have universal FREE! healthcare, and disband the military. For me it seems to be a fairly easy choice - your mileage may vary.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:46 pmnonsubhomine,
For the record, I’m one of those few people, in fact the only person here who doesn’t hate McCain.
You make a good point about the campaign cash, so, yeah, I suspect there are a lot of folks out there ( just not on this particular blog) who also do not hate McCain.
In fact, I’m probably in the majority in that I really don’t subscribe to either party, but the fiscal platform, lower taxes, strong military part of the Republican side wins me over every time.
I connect with some Liberal issues too, (in the classic Liberal sense), basically that freedom trumps all. I support gay marriage, because it’s none of my business I support the right to choose, because it’s none of my business. I support the decriminilzation of pot, because it’s none of my business. I support a parent’s right to home-school or to send thier kids to a relgious school because it’s none of my business. Freedom to me means that my personal views should not be imposed on anyone else, even if my religion says that the other person is committing a sin. It’s simply none of my business.
I think McCain is more middle of the road, not a hard core religious right winger. I dig that.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:02 pmStill, it is pretty obvious that McCain does not have the support of the Republican party, which he would need to beat the Messiah,Obama.
Yet he won the nomination, which indicates rather conclusively and obviously that he does have the support of a majority of the party. And yes, the vote totals AND the polling back me up there. Rhetoric doesn’t change that, and it’s impossible for there to be sufficient crossover voting for it to be otherwise.
What bends some out of whack is that they think they’re the only True Republicans, when they’re not even a majority of the party. Everyone else is one of the dreaded RINOs! That it is mathematically impossible for the party to win elections without the center-right and the centrist-moderate-right never seems to occur to them–they are supposed to win through sheer moral rightness of conviction. Heh.
This is not a new phenomenon. Both parties show the signs. I’ve seen it over and over, at all levels, local, state and federal. The most knee-jerk dogmatic far wing of the party thinks they own the party, but the rank and file begs to disagree.
Reagan knew this, and reached out to the so-called Reagan Democrats. Big Tent wins. Little Tent loses. That simple.
As someone else pointed out in that previous thread, if you want to win on dogma, you have to convince a majority of the population to accept the dogma, and vote for it. If you want farther-right people in office, you have to move the electorate to the right. To win elections, you have to convince more of the voters to buy your side than buy the other side. Those swing voters are found in the middle. Not rocket surgery or brain science, eh?
Case in point: Kansas is one of the reddest states there is. Apart from ‘64, hasn’t gone Dem since FDR’s second election–FDR lost there in ‘40 and ‘44. So why does it have a second-term Democratic moderate-liberal governor? Simple. The GOP simply can’t resist running dogmatically pure far-right-wingers. They can get those through the primary against GOP moderates, but they get their butts handed to them every time in the state-wide general when the Dems run a moderate against the GOP winger. Despite a 2 to 1 party advantage for the GOP. Why? Because the GOP is not entirely, or even necessarily mostly, far-right-wing.
According to several people here, the ONLY reason McCain even got the nomination is because the Dems voted for him
They are welcome to their opinions. The facts do not bear out their opinions. Denial, river in Egypt, etc.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:36 pmis Kos urging his followers to crossover in the Michigan Primaries (though admittedly for Mitt Romney).
are CNN exit polls of the New Hampshire Primary. Check out page 2 and pages 4-7 to see some of the interesting categories in which John McCain won a majority/plurality. Page 6 is especially interesting since it shows votes by party registration.
is an MSNBC exit poll of the South Carolina Primary. Check out the results for the “On most political matters, do you consider yourself __________” question.
For the record, I never said Dem and Independent crossover votes were the ONLY reason McCain got the nomination. But I believe he would not have won without them.
Also for the record, I never said there was any coordinated effort by the Democrats to muck up the Republican Primaries.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:39 pmMS,
Wow, Michigan, the state that counts for half…and that Romney was leading in before the election. Heh. Good luck showing an effect there. NH? They’ve always loved McCain. SC? You’re pretty much just proving my point about the GOP not being totally lock-step rightwingers.
For the record, I never said Dem and Independent crossover votes were the ONLY reason McCain got the nomination. But I believe he would not have won without them.
Since you like throwing links without being real specific about what you’re citing in them, a for you. Note at which point in time McCain took the national GOP polling lead (the week BEFORE Michigan) and note how many delegates are associated with which states and whether or not they had open or closed primaries (almost all the largest states). Super Tuesday tells the tale.
If the plain facts can’t convince you, then there’s no point discussing it with you. Indies helped him in NH, but they always have, just as they did in 2000. Past that, he just plain kicked ass where it counted while Romney and Huckabee split the Money and Jesus wings between them, and foundered.
May 29th, 2008 at 8:56 pmReally? Because McCain doesn’t. He supported the failed 2006 Arizona initiative to ban gay marriage and he has stated that he doesn’t even support civil unions.
Really? Because McCain doesn’t. He voted in favor of an amendment to H.R.5490 (the Siljander amendment) that would have included the unborn (from the time of conception) in the definition of “person”. He’s also against government funding of birth control and sex ed and has a consistent 0% rating from NARAL.
Really? Because McCain doesn’t. He supports the War on Drugs, mandatory prison sentences for drug violations, and has referred to marijuana as a “gateway drug”.
Except when he supports gun control. Or carbon emissions standards. Or amnesty.
So much for “middle of the road”. And so much for “freedom trumps all” too.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:00 pmTully,
You asked for documentation of crossover votes. I gave you documentation of crossover votes. If it makes you uncomfortable that I called your bluff, that’s your problem.
And I fail to see how your links refute my point. Again, I DID NOT say that crossover votes were the one and only reason why McCain won the nomination. But they were a significant enough contribution that I do not believe he would have won without them.
May 29th, 2008 at 9:07 pmWhat it seems to come down to is that some people have trouble thinking in terms of “futures” to calculate the results of their action NOW into what will happen in the future. Not voting for McCain because one doesn’t support the Republican choice is very frankly, a failure to consider the future. That decision is a choice of action for NOW.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:30 pmYou asked for documentation of crossover votes.
No, I didn’t. I asked for some “documentation” of Para’s claim. Here, let me repeat that claim, since you obviously didn’t pay attention:
And not from YOU, note, but from Para. What you produced ain’t much. If you think that feeble noise produced a nomination for McCain, please, go right ahead and prove it! The burden of proof is on the claimant. I pointed you at the appropriate evidence to use–the state elections results themselves, and the open/closed nature of same. Get crunchin’ on them numbers. Your opinion fails to impress when unsupported with the hard analysis.
And I fail to see how your links refute my point.
Then you need to indulge yourself in some classes in real-world empirical analysis and elementary logic. SRSLY. I didn’t say I was refuting it, I said the real evidence did not appear to support it. Your personal belief is not anything but a claim, to date unevidenced with anything but anecdotes and unlinked implications, ones which fail to address the available hard evidence. I showed you where that evidence is. Not my bad if you refuse to address it. It might even confirm what you believe–but if you never do the actual analysis, we’ll never know. We’ll just know your unsupported opinion.
For the record, I never said Dem and Independent crossover votes were the ONLY reason McCain got the nomination. But I believe he would not have won without them. Also for the record, I never said there was any coordinated effort by the Democrats to muck up the Republican Primaries.
Who said you did? Certainly not me. I was requesting citations for someone else’s claim. Which YOU purported to be addressing by offering citations that didn’t actually address the claim. You purported to be answering THAT SPECIFIC CLAIM, and now you run away from it, while claiming you’ve shown…what, exactly? Certainly not the assertion you purported to be addressing…before you explicitly disclaimed it.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:51 pmWell said Rachel, well said, I have significant problems with a few of McCain’s policies and supra-major ones with all of Obama’s or Hillary’s. Once the marxist Obama gets those policies enacted it will near impossible to remove them, it has taken 50 years to dent the New Deal policies of LBJ and both the Democrats are bigger New Dealists than he was. McCain is solid on winning the war, reducing spending, prolife, and hates taxes, he was not my first choice or second or even third but he is still lightyears better than the socialist terrorist sympathizer Obama. Those that say they will sit on their hands out of principle have every right to do so but don’t whine when your taxes go through the roof and we lose to Al Qaeda while the economy collapses under over taxation and business suffocating regulation.
May 30th, 2008 at 12:06 amBrava, Rachel!
Great post - I hope people read and understand.
May 30th, 2008 at 12:37 amYeah, you did.
The argument was about crossover votes.
Para made the claim that crossover votes gave McCain the win, you asked for documentation of crossover votes, and I gave it to you.
Yeah, that’s called “refuting”. Which you didn’t do.
Again, I never said that crossover votes alone were the reason why McCain won. And I never asserted for a fact that crossover votes gave him the nom, only that I believe they did.
I love how first you chastise me for putting words in your mouth, then you go and put words in mine.
I never said you said that. Para said that, and I was responding to him.
How, Tully? HOW am I running away from it?
Did I ever claim there was rock-solid evidence that crossover votes, and only crossover votes, won McCain the nomination? Did I ever claim that there was a vast conspiracy of Democrats who conspired together in a conspiratorial fashion to vote for McCain in Republican Primaries? Did I ever claim either of those things and then retract them?
No.
I only claimed that crossover votes had occurred, and that I believe McCain would not have won without them. The fact that Para misrepresented the crossover argument is not my fault.
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that by responding to your post I was taking responsibility for every single claim Para has ever made since the beginning of time and that I was required to agree with every single one of them, no matter how small or technical. How silly of me.
May 30th, 2008 at 12:56 amLast time I checked, Mightysamurai doesen’t even like me.
Oh, and to respond to Mighty, No McCain doesn’t support some of those Libertarian stances I do, BUT NEITHER DO ANY OF THE REPUBLICANS.
That said, the Libertatians ( or classic liberals) cannot get elected, so I must support the party that I feel will least damage ME, my life, my family, my safety, my freedon,and my fortune.
That sure as hell ain’t Obama. So I have no other choice but to support McCain this time, because I have goals, and Obama is the bigger obstacle to those goals.
When a libertatian runs and can WIN, I’ll vote, campaign, contribute, and paint his name on the side of my truck. Until then, it’s all I can do to hope to keep the Liberal-gun-grabber-raise-my-taxes-appease-the-islamic-terrorists out of office. If Voting for McCain accomplishes that, then I can live with his differences.
May 30th, 2008 at 7:01 amAnyway, back to me. If you want my advice, (and you do) phrase your parental-type lecture thusly;
May 30th, 2008 at 7:11 ampeople who reject Johnny Mac because he isn’t conservative enough aren’t stupid, they are behaving stupidly. Insult problem solved. You’re welcome.
I see it as someone who votes for a lefty (McCain) to push the country more to the right are behaving st… Oh wait, no name calling.
May 30th, 2008 at 7:35 amThe signal to the Repubs for electing McCain to the presidency will be what? More conservative candidates or more liberal candidates? Repubs lose congress seats when they don’t run on conservative issues.
If McCain is elected I see a Demm veto proof senate and house by 2011. That means a liberal house, liberal senate, and liberal presidency. No thank you.
I don’t know if the country has moved to the left and this will happen anyway, but I assume it hasn’t and have to try this.
Well, I must say, Rachel, you have put the entire issue into a very black and white frame, at least for me.
I have been on the fence over this whole issue since Maverick McCain locked up the nomination. I am still very uneasy about how that happened - it seems to me that there was more than a little manipulation by the press, and I deplore Mike Huckabee acting as a spoiler for Romney. Most of all, I was 99.9% disappointed in the complete lack of fire emanating from the Thompson campaign.
I have stated more than once that I cannot, in good conscience, vote for McCain.
But neither can I participate in placing a far left loon in the oval office,
At least with McCain we have a 50/50 shot at some decent Federal Judges.
So, in the end, I will vote for McCain.
But I will be wearing nose plugs, crossing my fingers, and dealing with my guilt over it for the next four (or more) years.
Here’s hoping that Maverick at least picks a Federalist for VP…
May 30th, 2008 at 9:52 amAt first, when McCain became the Republican (aka Stupid Party) nominee, I said I wouldn’t vote for him because of that assault on the First Amendment, McCain/Feingold *spit*.
I am now in the position of having to hold my nose and vote for McCain for one reason. We are in a *$((#@$^& hot war with people who want to see us dead or converted. At least McCain understands we have to win.
I am very afraid that an Obama presidency will result in an economic depression, at least one nuclear-based attack on America or Israel, and an even larger/more difficult war looming. When I look at Obama’s foreign policy, I see Neville’s Chamberlin’s ‘I have spoken with Mr. Hitler’ and ‘Peace in our time’.
So when the choices are between someone I dislike and someone who will get me and my family killed, I vote for the person I dislike.
May 30th, 2008 at 10:07 amElephants and Donkeys.
I don’t care for either party myself, although I too am frightened by the Democrats (of which party I was once a member). The Republicans only piss me off for being such inefectual retards these days.
I think the two parties should change their animal symbols to reflect reality:
Baboons and Hyenas.
The Republicans are baboons because, well, do I have to elaborate? The Democrats are Hyenas, because, like that animal, they are female-dominated, and like to steal the fruits of other animals labors.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:13 pmThis is just me, but my latest approach (subject to change) in selecting between candidates is to vote for the guy you want to succeed in the primaries (sorry, Rush), and to vote against the greater of the evils in the general election. Your Mileage May Vary.
BTW, I may have been here once or twice a number of years ago, but I sorta like the place. I think I’ll be back.
May 30th, 2008 at 5:52 pmThis whole argument is, IMO, redundant and fruitless.
One is either a person that is going to vote their principles, or not.
Trying to change the mind of a principled voter means changing their core beliefs, and of course the very definition of a principled person would tend to negate that possiblility.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:26 am