You and your silly principles.
I’ve been saying for months that you’re not okay in the head if you’re anywhere to the right of Karl Marx and you refuse to vote for John McCain. If you need a refresher, here. Here. Here. Here.
Specifically, one thing I’ve harped on repeatedly is the whole “principles” issue. All this time, I really and truly COULD NOT FATHOM what some of you were thinking when you kept saying that this lesser-of-two-evils technique violates your principles and that you were willing to accept the negative repercussions of applying those principles.
Then one day last week, I saw something on some weird TV show on cable about kids and drugs, and how some parents believe that if their kids (teenagers) are dead-set on smoking pot, then the only reasonable and safe thing to do is to buy the pot for them. That way, the kids aren’t associating with drug dealers and low-lifes, and the parents would have more control over the quality of the pot and the quantity the kids are smoking.
The moment of my epiphany was when one parent said something that was almost verbatim what I’ve said about voting for McCain and the fact that you are getting a new president whether you like it or not so you may as well do what you can to get the less shitty one. It was something like, “Well, Billy IS going to smoke pot. There’s nothing I can do about that, he’s GONNA smoke it no matter what I say. So I may as well at least try to keep him as safe as I can, and if that means I have to buy it for him, I will.”
Quickly I ran it through my brain: what if I had kids and was in this situation? Would I get drugs for them just because that was better than them getting drugs from strangers and scumbags? Especially if I knew for a fact that my kids were just dumb enough to get busted and would almost certainly end up in jail if I didn’t choose the lesser evil by getting the drugs for them?
Shit no, I wouldn’t! Because it would violate my principles. As in, the principle that it’s wrong to give drugs to a minor, and that doing so would be a tacit approval of the harmful behavior. I would be sending a very clear message that I don’t really have a problem with my kid doing drugs, even if I’m telling him that I do and that the only reason I give the drugs to him is minimize his risk going to jail. Yeah, giving it to him is the lesser of two evils, but it’s STILL EVIL.
I literally smacked myself on the forehead. In that situation, there’s no way in hell I’d use the lesser of two evils argument on myself. Just no WAY. If my kid wanted to be a dumbass and ruin his own life, you know what, I’d have to let him because if the only alternative was for me to violate my deeply-held principles about this issue, tough shit. I wouldn’t do it. I might have to deal with a kid in jail because of it, a kid with a criminal record and all of that, but like I said. Tough shit. I don’t give drugs to minors, that’s all there is to it. Even if that principle means my hypothetical kid would end up in jail.
And it has nothing to do with teaching him a lesson, either. That might be a nice side effect but it wouldn’t factor into my decision at all. I just can’t do something I think is wrong and that is an implicit approval of something I DON’T approve of.
So, damn. I guess I get it.
I figure some of you who still don’t agree that there’s anything good about not voting for McCain are surely saying that a kid going to jail for being a dumbass is not the same as electing a socialist president who associates with hateful racemongers and doesn’t know jack-shit about foreign policy. Of course, I’m not saying it is. There are several orders of magnitude of difference in importance between the two on a macro level. I’m just saying, I now understand why some people adamantly refuse to vote for McCain on the basis of it being in violation of their principles. It’s not some platitude and it’s not a meaningless excuse made out of spite. It’s good solid decision-making based on one’s own personal internal compass of what would make them feel like they were doing something wrong.
I admit it, I never bothered to take my opponents’ argument out of this context and put it into another one that I do have strong feelings about, in order to understand the logic behind it. The thing is, I don’t really have a problem with McCain because I’m not a conservative; I just hate socialists. But that’s just like some people not really having a problem with their kid smoking pot; they just hate for him to associate with drug dealers. Well, bully for them but I DO have a problem with a kid smoking pot so I would NOT make the same decision.
Of course, I’m still going to vote for McCain, because it doesn’t violate my principles to do so. But I won’t again criticize other people for refusing to violate theirs, or accuse them of using it as an excuse to act on spite, because odds are that’s nowhere near the truth. The only thing I can really say is that I wish it didn’t violate their principles to vote the way I want them to vote, but obviously I wish everybody would do exactly what I want them to do at all times so I guess that’s a tough shit on me.
(And by the way. I have no problem with adults smoking pot; like I’ve said before, I think it should be legal. The moral problem with giving it to kids is the same as the reason we don’t let them vote, sign contracts, drink alcohol, or buy cigarettes: they’re too dumb to have that kind of responsibility.)
I wouldn’t do it either, but my reasons have nothing to do with morality or the law. I think messing up your brain with drugs is stupid, and I refuse to help a child of mine do something stupid.
Fortunately, neither of my actual offspring is at all interested in smoking pot. They think it’s stupid too.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:04 amI remember reading in a book by the former Pope, that while it was sometimes allowable to tolerate an evil thing to prevent a greater evil, it was NEVER allowable to commit evil, even in an effort to attain a good end.
Of course, I’m not a pope, so I probably didn’t phrase that as well as he did…
June 9th, 2008 at 10:10 amRachel:
I haven’t visited here since last week, and just read about Ruperts dad.
He’s in my prayers. What an awful thing to happen.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:17 amThis analogy is not apt enough but I’m not smart enough how to figure out to make it better. It’s not just your own child you’re letting gamble with his health and freedom by smoking pot. You’re actively sitting back and doing nothing while a horde of opposed pot-smokers pass laws saying you HAVE to get the child the pot. Or something. See, not smart enough, but I’m smart enough to know this: People who a) acknowledge McCain would be a better president than Obama but b) still refuse to vote McCain are helping screw the rest of us over their principles, which is fine if it’s important enough, but I don’t see how pandering to Global Warming idiots and being a complete jerk about illegal immigration are detractions big enough to die on or to make a person contribute to the serious degradation of this country by electing a socialist who wants our military to be defeated.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:21 amHi Rachel.
Isn’t it strange how similar “Obama Nation” and ABOMINATION sound?
Makes me really really like McCain’s speech at cpac.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:23 amCongratulations on the epiphany, Rachel. I have had quite a few in my life and I HOPE I am a bit better person for each one of them!
I had a gentleman that I considered to be a very wise man advise me when I was much younger, “Listen to understand, not to refute.” He told me this in the context of my getting ready to take some college classes, and he knew I had a very strong urge to debate and argue with anyone whose beliefst didn’t square perfectly with my worldview.
However, his advice has stood me in very good stead throughout my life in almost every situation I have encountered. By listening to understand why someone disagreed with me, I avoid the trap that used to befall me…that of assigning dark motives or assuming simple minds to explain their failure to accept my “brilliant” arguments.
As I mentioned on a post some days ago on your blog, I intend to vote for Ron Paul based on the principles I hold dear. While you will be voting for John McCain and therefore disagree with my choice, thank you for respecting that I have arrived at my choice for what I consider valid reasons and in accordance with principles that matter to me, just as I trust you have arrived at your choice for reasons you consider valid and in accordance with your principles.
So although we won’t vote the same, I am honored that we will both vote. I believe our founding fathers considered it much more important for those who vote to do so for well considered reasons and in accordance with the principles they hold rather than to just show up and make a selection to say “We voted!” That is why they gave us a republic rather than a democracy, and one of the reasons they gave us an electoral college rather than direct popular voting to select the president.
I intend to continue reading your blog, not just because watching your understanding grow is so interesting…although it certainly is…but because I learn so much from your comments and the comments of your blogging buddies.
Best regards,
June 9th, 2008 at 10:37 amCraig
The question becomes, is there an objective standard of what is The Lesser of Two Evils? If something looks like the lesser and you won’t do it anyway (i.e. buy your kid pot) then obviously, for you, it is NOT the lesser of two evils, and I agree with you: It is better in the long run for the kid to make his own choices and take his own consequences than for you to try to shield him from those consequences by doing an illegal act to get him a substance you wouldn’t allow him to have anything to do with if you could control him directly.
So the question becomes, is it an objective lesser of two evils to vote McCain? Some people have convinced themselves that it is not, that the lesser evil is sitting back and voting their conscience (i.e. not voting at all) but in that case, they would have to admit that either a) McCain will NOT be a better president than Obama or b) them feeling good about their principles is more important than the welfare of the country.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:47 amThat needed repeating, because, yes, that is it.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:54 amThere is more to it than just that quote. There is a reason and logic behind the principles.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:57 amMy neighbor is political director for the junior U.S. senator from our state, and I value his opinion as an “insider.” I asked him two weeks ago whether he thought John McCain would make a good president or not. This is his answer, and has become one of the key reasons I will vote for John McCain this fall:
“Sen. McCain doesn’t care what anyone thinks about him. He’ll do what he feels is right. He’s been in the Senate for a while–but has kept himself above the fray. He’ll make an excellentpresident, as I trust his judgment.(emphasis his).”
For any of you who think this may sound familiar, think “War on Terror” and “…we will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail” from the remarks Pres. Bush made after 9/11. Handing the reins to Obama will make those words empty–and our country weaker. As an added bonus, Obama will raise my taxes and turn the clock back on the US about 80 years as my kids will enjoy the reincarnation of the WPA, TVA and the fascist alphabet soup FDR created.
My vote is with McCain. What principles are you standing on?
June 9th, 2008 at 11:01 amThis whole deal sucks. McCain is a RINO, Obama is a nutcase, but… how the heck could I possibly violate MY principles and allow a Marxist to be elected as president? No way could I let that happen, so I will vote for McCain. And, I’ll even like it…
June 9th, 2008 at 11:06 amAnwyn has some very interesting points about both the pot and the voting in the 10:47 am post. If I could be permitted a bit of license, I would like to suggest adding a new point c) as a possible valid objective point. First to quote a) and b) and then add c):
“Some people have convinced themselves that it is not, that the lesser evil is sitting back and voting their conscience (i.e. not voting at all) but in that case, they would have to admit that either a) McCain will NOT be a better president than Obama or b) them feeling good about their principles is more important than the welfare of the country [and now here I am adding to Anwyn's post] or c) the founding fathers believed that feeling good about their principles is exactly how citizens can best support the welfare of the country, and therefore it is not an evil nor a lesser evil, but is the objectively right thing to do.”
Whether you agree with me or not, there are people like me who consider point c) to be the guiding light in how to choose which government leaders to support. Please note that in my previous post I have not refused to vote, but stated I will vote for Ron Paul. While either choice may result in the same frightening outcome (Obama as president), I consider not voting to only be in accord with my principles if I were not informed as to the candidates and/or issues. When I am informed on the candidates and/or issues, I consider it my duty to vote even if I vote for an outcome that is statistically miniscule on the scale of likelihood to occur.
My attempt at suggesting another point of view assumes that by using the phrase “feeling good about their principles” Anwyn meant to describe someone voting in accordance with their principles. I hope I captured Anwyn’s intent correctly in using that phrase. If I didn’t, I plead ignorance and ask forbearance.
Best regards,
June 9th, 2008 at 11:08 amCraig
The part that really sucks is that we are not voting for the best man for the office, we’re voting for 2 people who the majority of us wish were not running at all. How’d we get to this? This sucks. I do personally think that McCain is better for the country as a whole, but that really isn’t the point. The point is really how’d we end up here?
June 9th, 2008 at 11:11 amJudging from the Democrat primary votes, kids don’t have a monopoly on Stupid. But I agree that pot should be legal, because then all the Dems would have been at home eating Doritos (and trying to decide if our universe is just an atom in a speck of dust in a larger universe) instead of making a mockery of the election system by voting for Homecoming King when they should have been voting for a President.
For me, I’m voting for McCain unless he decides to spit in the eyes of Conservatives one more time and pick some monkey-faced liberal (i.e. Charlie Crist) as his running mate.
June 9th, 2008 at 11:11 amI understand the thinking and I understand the motive. But there is the small matter of agency. If I have the capacity to keep very bad things from happening, but don’t do so, I carry a lot of responsibility for the results.
This is a matter of hierarchy of values. If I make my own “purity test” more important than all the possible consequences to the county, I’ve made myself and my very pure principles pretty important in the scheme of things.
I would invite those who refuse to vote for McCain on principle to give this some thought.
And BTW, McCain has really pissed me off many, many times. He’s not my first choice by any stretch. But I do not want a McGovernite socialist surrender monkey as President, linked up with a liberal Democrat congress. Think of the consequences.
My purity of principle is less important than keeping these clowns from running and further ruining things. Just please use your imagination, and then get serious. This is no time to sulk, grab your ball, and stomp home.
June 9th, 2008 at 11:18 am“Helping to screw the rest of us over their principles”? No, I don’t think so. We’re simply Doing What We Believe is the Right Thing. Sticking to my principles is what I do in life, and if there were more like me (which there are every day) there would be more Libertarians (which there are every day) and why isn’t that a good thing? Come on over!
June 9th, 2008 at 11:25 amFine. Stand by your principles.
Welcome President Barack Obama.
“Makes Jimmy Carter Look Competent”
June 9th, 2008 at 11:26 amPeople who beat their chest about “standing on principle” often talk of “principle” as though it were some kind of end in itself. To them, it doesn’t seem to matter what one’s principle is, whether it’s a good principle, a so-so principle or a downright wacky one, all that matters is that one has a principle and adheres to it. Hogwash. Being principled is only as good as the underlying principle. If you operate on the wrong principle, then being principled is a bug, not a feature.
The pot analogy is flawed because it’s not really an example of standing solely on principle. If the choice really were between a kid smoking X amount of pot and the same kid going to prison (or worse, getting shot in a bad drug deal), there’d be only one choice a decent parent could make. But of course the real world doesn’t work that way. Not all kids ever try pot, and among those who do, the choice is far from binary. Some will try it once or twice and move on, while others will become regular recreational users and others still will degenerate into full-blown potheads. Does anyone seriously doubt that on average, kids whose parents say “don’t smoke this but I know you’re going to anyway so here’s all the pot you want” will end up smoking more than those whose parents said “don’t touch this stuff, I’ll likely kick you out of the house if you do, and I sure as hell won’t help you score it?”
Presidential politics are nothing like that. There the choice is truly binary. Either Barack Obama or John McCain will be our next President. Period. Any quixotic “principle” that demands otherwise is irrelevant, or worse. We had a chance to do better in the primaries, and that opportunity passed, thanks in no small part to the principle-freaks were too damned “principled” to participate in that. So now we’re stuck with two choices, and anyone who can see a dime’s worth of difference between them has only one rational choice: suck it up, hold your nose, and cast the vote for the better candidate, the lesser evil, the least repulsive Democrat, or whatever else you choose to call him.
June 9th, 2008 at 11:26 amI think there should be another lever in the voting booth that allows you to vote specifically AGAINST a candidate. Imagine the small bit of satisfaction you’d feel walking out of the voting booth knowing you could negate some idiot’s vote with your “-1″ vote! And you wouldn’t be violating your principles by voting FOR the lesser of two evils.
June 9th, 2008 at 11:33 amCraig, unfortunately I disagree that voting your principles, where that action forseeably results in somebody very contrary to your principles being elected, serves the best welfare of the country. Your position is clearly stated, however.
June 9th, 2008 at 11:33 am1) I’m going to have to break out the snow blower to get through all the epiphanies around here!
2) I keep waiting for some bombshell of a scandal of some such that allows Fred(!) back in, or McCain decides to pick him for VP. I think I need to wake up and get past the Fred thing, though.
3) I believe McCain will make a better POTUS than B Hussein Obama. But only meaning McC’ll fuck up the country less. I don’t have to worry about anything related to GWoT (defense spending, troops, etc.) with McCain as President, which counts for a lot.
4) That’ll learn me to not check in all weekend long, I’ll summarize the last few days worth here: Rachel, I am so sorry to hear about Rupert(nhrn)’s dad, and I’m glad it seems he’s doing OK (or better). I don’t pray, but please know I’ve got good thoughts flowing in your direction.
June 9th, 2008 at 11:35 am4a) I LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE the new banner, for what it’s worth
June 9th, 2008 at 11:35 amThanks, Anwyn. I wanted to make sure I did not misconstrue your quote or err in my understanding of how you meant to state your points.
Your position is well thought out and certainly has a strong application to the real world, and I do seriously consider that line of thinking whenever I select a government leader to support.
I respect both your position and the manner in which you chose to converse with me.
Best regards,
June 9th, 2008 at 11:46 amCraig
Hi,
just wanted to say that I am praying for Joe, Rupert, Rupert’s mom, you, and the family (and the dogs).
Also, Love the new banner.. it made me spit my honey tea on my keyboard… that’s when you know its good…
June 9th, 2008 at 11:46 amCommander in Chief of the Armed Forces is the trump card. McCain is the man for that rather large and vitally important hat.
Obama would only use the military as his social issues guinea pig like Clinton did in the early 90s. Frightening thought, deeply frightening.
June 9th, 2008 at 11:49 amSome principles are good, some are bad. The fact that someone is “principled” is by itself of little moment; at most it means that they’ve thought things through a bit and try to be consistent in their actions as best they can. But you can have a very “principled” person who is a jerk or even a criminal, if the principles to which they hold are themselves bad.
So it’s still entirely appropriate for you to criticize these people if you believe, as I do, that their principle in this case will lead to worse results for the country than if they were to follow the principle of the “lesser of two evils.”
June 9th, 2008 at 11:53 amI used to think people operated either on principle or on convenience, until I realized that convenience IS a principle.
Bottom line? Everyone operates on principle all the time, even if the principles being operated on are in conflict and competing for priority.
The trick to solving the apparent internal contradictions is to find a functioning philosophical perspective that can self-consistently integrate all sides.
Unfortunately, such a beast is hard to come by, as illustrated by the many dead-end philosophies of political and other natures…
BTW, I am one of those who reads this most excellent blog(!) from the “vicarious ranting” perspective, but also for the excellent and civil arguments put forth in the posts and comments. Thanks, Rachel!
And best wishes for medical good news.
Piercello
June 9th, 2008 at 11:55 amor accuse them of using it as an excuse to act on spite
I never said it was an act of spite or vengeance against Maverick. I’m convinced that my planned action this fall is the best choice-long term- for both this country and conservatism, just as I’m sure that you believe your choice is the best one.
Anyway, I think that I’ll take a break from this particular subject until autumn rolls around. While it’s entertaining, it’s also become predictable in that neither side seems likely to budge. Right now, anyway. Who knows what will happen in the next few months? People might change their minds as the first Tuesday in November gets closer. Nothing like a looming deadline to force a person to really confront an issue.
June 9th, 2008 at 11:56 amI have a friend who actually grew pot so her son had nothing to do with the dealer. And the son being a good son, seeing the risks his mother was ready to take for him, stopped smoking pot. Love and education. True story.
June 9th, 2008 at 12:04 pmSo it’s still entirely appropriate for you to criticize these people if you believe, as I do, that their principle in this case will lead to worse results for the country than if they were to follow the principle of the “lesser of two evils.”
Echo. Nor does acting on “principle” mean that their principles themselves are even remotely above criticism, whether one understands the logic of them or not.
June 9th, 2008 at 12:10 pmAnother issue of sitting it out to teach Republicans a lesson is that they don’t get the right answer to the question. Last congressional election we stayed home in droves to send them the message that if they don’t act like conservatives we won’t vote for them. How did they react…by becoming more liberal. They are now trying to out spend, out tax, and out regulate the liberals in relation to our daily lives.
June 9th, 2008 at 12:16 pmI think it would be fun for the debate to center on the merits of voting for the lesser of two idiots.
(I don’t think either of the candidates is evil in any way.)
June 9th, 2008 at 12:18 pmI reject the “lesser of two evils” formulation. I don’t accept that McCain is evil, I don’t even think Obama is. Misguided, naive, shallow, narcissistic, opportunistic, but that doesn’t add up to evil.
I do however believe he will do massive harm to the nation. Some believe McCain might do some too, and consider it a principled stand to sit it out or make a protest vote rather than participate in the harm.
Politics is not about getting the best - it’s about the best you can get at the time. I can’t really accept that your principles are admirable if you’re willing to permit maximum damage to the nation rather than accept minimum damage.
And I don’t even believe McCain will do the minimum damage some of us fear. I think reality is going to smack him in the ass and he’s going to have some epiphanies of his own concerning GW or campaign finance reform. What kind of reality check do you expect Obama to get from a Democrat controlled Congress and an adoring media?
Oh, and make sure you wave by-by to all the nice Iraqis you’re consigning to Islamist hell by permitting Obama to win. And if you do, please don’t try claiming you support the military after doing what you can to make their mission fail. Any Jewish friends you have, start figuring out how to phrase the condolences you’ll give after Israel is dismembered. Assuming you can afford to send condolences after your tax “cuts” (which in Democrat administrations always tend upwards).
June 9th, 2008 at 12:29 pmChoosing the lesser of two evils is entirely rational. Look at the period 1961 through 1981. We had Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter. Disasters all. Yet the republic survived. I’ll vote for someone who won’t screw things up too bad any day, especially given the alternatives.
June 9th, 2008 at 12:30 pmAs a matter of fact, I’m NOT so sure he would be a better president than Obama. At least we could count on Republicans in Congress to oppose all the things Obama tries to do.
But doesn’t it also follow that people who…
a) acknowledge that McCain is extremely liberal and would be a very bad president in his own right,
but b) vote for him anyway because “the other guy is worse”
…are helping screw the rest of us over their lack of principle?
What I mean is, how will always voting for the Republican candidate, no matter how liberal that candidate is, get us anything? What will it do besides show the Republicans that it doesn’t matter how liberal they are so long as they are marginally less liberal than the other side? What result can we expect from this other than an even more liberal Republican candidate in the next election?
Then respectfully, you have not thought it all the way through.
The types of legislation being proposed by the “Global Warming idiots” can and will have a highly detrimental effect on our economy. Want to know what it feels like to pay $8-$10 per gallon at the pump? Want to know what it feels like to have your heat turned off by the government because you exceeded your allowance of energy use? Well you will know if we enact the legislation being proposed by the MMGW crowd.
As for illegal immigration, remember what happened the last time we tried giving ~2.7 million illegals amnesty? They brought all their families across the border for a big slice of amnesty pie too. Now we’ve got 12-20 million of them living here. How much money do you think that costs our hospitals? Our schools? Our prison system?
Now, how much MORE do you think it will cost us to give those 12-20 million illegals amnesty?
June 9th, 2008 at 12:30 pmRachel, do not worry. When you are the Queen of the World (and you WILL BE), you will be able to dictate who will vote for whom (of course, it will be you, unless of course you tell us to vote for Sunny).
I think people take politics way to personal. What you approve or disapprove on a societal level does not have to mirror what you approve of or disapprove of on a personal level. EG, I am a heterosexual, and I like to sleep with women. But I don’t give a rat’s ass if one hairy guy wants to sleep with another (and I suppose I hve no problem at all, maybe even would watch, if two women decide to do so).
I do not smoke pot (anymore), but have no problem at all with someone who does. I don’t drink (anymore) but anyone who does is cool with me (provided they don’t drive a car or operate heavy machinery). I own guns, but I don’t have a problem with people who don’t.
Now…these same values I have…I would instill in my own children, as my father instilled them in me. I would never admonish my neighbor’s child for smoking pot. I would, however, beat the living tar out of my own child if he joined him. It’s personal responsibility, and a)taking care of and b)educating your children.
Obviously, I would not procreate with a woman who did not share these ideals with me. Would I call the cops on that woman I rejected for those reasons if I saw her smoking pot? Nope. That’s her life. Would I have a problem if someone else did? Nope.
I’m a believer in the concept of live and let live, but at the same time, a child is yours, as much as your car, or your house, or your pants, are yours. You treat them with the same respect as any of your possessions. Sure, everyone damages their stuff, and every child has some sort of childhood trauma, some more than others. But in the end, it is the values you share with your child that live on with them and keep you alive (in the unlikely event that there is no God).
And so, I am proud to say that more than one of my family members last Thanksgiving (actually, about a dozen), commented either, “you look just like your Dad,” or “your Dad would have said that.” I’m proud that my Mom has often stated that of all her children, I’m the most like him. In short, I think he was a great father, because, he lives in me; because, you ask most people who the greatest man who ever lived was, you’d get Jesus, or Alexander the Great, or Napoleon, or some such answer. And I’d answer you, “my Dad.”
If I’m half the dad he was, I’ll be satisfied.
On the macro level, I don’t see the President as a father figure. I see him as, above all, the civilian head of the military. After all, that is his most sacred role in the Constiutional Republic. Sure, he has others, but the government, as built by the Framers, has but two roles: to stay out of our way; and to protect us. I doubt McCain will to the former, but he will do the latter. I know for fact that Obama will do neither. As an above poster pointed out, thanks to our two-party system, it’s a binary choice. It’s easy for me. I won’t be writing anyone in (as enticing as Fred! might be).
And, I might just add, those conservatives sitting out because they can’t stomach McCain? They might just be canceled out by Democrats who can’t stomach the idea of not voting for Hillary. It might be a wash. But that is not a given, and it’s not worth the risk.
Also: just as an aside. My venerable mother, an active member of the Republican party who has participated in several state and national conventions, has stated on repeated occasions that “whoever we elect is a placeholder.” I think what she means is that Americans are really waiting for the next Reagan.
I think that person is out there, just waiting to be discovered. It’s probably someone none of us have heard of, possibly someone who is not even involved in politics. Or maybe, she’s waiting for Jesus. I don’t know.
In the meantime, do you want the placeholder to be a glass of water that ruins the whole book, or just a dogear that folds the page? That’s the question.
June 9th, 2008 at 12:48 pmMighty Samurai, as much as I despise what will happen to gas and oil prices and the resulting upheaval, I despise government-controlled health care far worse. I’ve thought it through and I do not have a lack of principle, thanks. My principle is what’s oft been stated, that McCain’s pet toys will do less damage than Obama’s and that it’s my duty to vote for what will do less damage, as somebody else up the thread said so nice and concisely. I believe the premise that it will teach the Republican Party a lesson in who they run is flawed and unreliable as a guide for voting. Therefore I vote for the candidate who will do less damage to things that matter to me.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:16 pmAnd also, Mightysamurai, if your principle is that better things would happen to the country with Obama as president, then I have no quarrel with your action in not voting for McCain. My quarrel is with the people who admit McCain would be a better president and won’t vote for him anyway. I think you are taking a gamble that I’m not willing to follow, but that’s why I made one of my conditions “acknowledgement that McCain would be a better president” as one of the premises of my discussion.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:18 pmThe logic of this metaphor is flawed. It is not choosing between buying pot for your kids and not buying pot for your kids… it is choosing between buying them pot and keeping them home (perhaps with a dvd and a pizza), or giving them money to go down to a condemned building where they inject smack with a dirty needle and then smoke crack on a soiled mattress in the company of open sore caked whores, pimps and junkies who haven’t bathed in weeks. If you *must* choose between one or the other, then there is a difference. One is undesirable, the other is insanity.
Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich. I’ll take the latter.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:22 pmAnd by “gamble I’m not willing to follow,” I mean that you’re gambling on two things: 1) that Congress will stop Obama’s more egregious plans. I do not think this is reliable. 2) That sitting on our thumbs and letting Obama win would learn ‘em up at GOP headquarters. This seems like lunacy to me–the GOP leadership didn’t decide to install McCain as our nominee, primary voters did.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:23 pmThomas Sowell has a good article worth reading on Odrama and McCain.
It starts out like this:
Whatever your position, it’s worth reading.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:34 pmI would like to echo mighty samurai’s points. Not surprisingly, I guess, because they sound somehow… familiar to me.
Anwyn, I will respond that if GOP primaries were actually closed to registered Republicans, we might have had a different result. No way to know now, of course, and here in Virginia I’m not required to register for any political party, so I don’t know how you’d stop the crossover votes.
And with that, I’ll bow out from this particular thread because I don’t see anyone convincing the other side right now. Instead, I’ll comment in the Daily Dog posts because I find those threads to be somewhat unpredictable.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:36 pmRachel,
The problem with your analogy is that in one case, the drugs, you have no difference of outcome, whereas in the other, the election, you do.
If you believe the kid WILL smoke pot NO MATTER WHAT, then it doesn’t matter if you provide the dope or if someone else does. Either way the kid gets baked. So you can act on principle and refuse to provide.
But no matter how principled you claim to be, you cannot rationally believe there is no difference in outcome between Obama and McCain. McCain will cut taxes. Obama will raise them. McCain will cut spending, earmarks and pork. Obama will increase them. McCain is pro-life, whether that matters to you or not. Obama is the most pro-abortion candidate in history. McCain wants to win the war in Iraq. Obama wants to surrender. And that’s just SOME of the differences.
In NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM can you claim that not supporting McCain, and therefore supporting Obama by default, is “principled” as a conservative.
So stick with your original pro-McCain anti-Obama rants.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:40 pmphysics geek, I’d like to see the primaries of both parties closed to members of the party myself. But that doesn’t address the point of contention about “teaching the GOP leadership a lesson.”
June 9th, 2008 at 1:42 pmI don’t mean to pick on one point in this debate, but I’ve seen this argument made multiple times and I can’t figure it out. Barack Obama, if elected, will have a backing from every non-conservative media outlet on the planet that will make the love affair with Bill Clinton look objective and measured by comparison. The Republicans in office have demonstrated repeatedly that they are complete chickenshits when it comes to withstanding negative press. So how is it, exactly, that we think that they will stand up to Obama as some sort of united front in the Senate (the only place they’ll have the slightest say on anything) just because the Obamachrist’s positions are at the far left of the political spectrum?
And while I’m on this subject, for the “let Obama win and screw up the country so the Democrats get the blame” contingent I have one question: What federal social-welfare program created within the last 100 years has either been eliminated or significantly reduced in scope? I only ask because it seems to me that before we shrug off the idea of President Obama building a government-run health care bureaucracy, we might want to know what chance we actually have of ever getting rid of the thing.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:45 pmmightysamuri and physics geek:
June 9th, 2008 at 1:53 pmIt is truly a waste of time trying to get the McCainites to understand why their man is too liberal to vote for. Wait for another McCain gaff when more will see the light.
I do appreciate that Rachael can see that there is a reason for not supporting him.
Whenever this subject comes up, I ask McCain supporters what is there aim as congress continues to turn more Dem. Will they try to turn around the Repub party only after the Dem congress is veto proof? I don’t get a response. There is not effort to prevent a Dem take over of 1/3 the government in congress - it is ignored. It is just a hope that Dems won’t get the presidential third to them.
Clinton started with a Dem house and couldn’t get anything through it. The time to turn Repubs away from the left is now, before a veto proof Dem congress gets voted in. When McCain gets elected, he will get the blame (some will be rightly so) for the liberal programs that the Dems pass in congress. I don’t expect McCain to stand against most of their programs anyway.
McCain will not get my vote. Don’t lie about me and say I’m voting for Obama.
I would like someone to explain how,
Giving up my principals and voting for McCain, Because not voting and getting Obama for President is selling out my country.
is any different than,
Giving up my principals and acceding to a terroist’s demands because if I don’t he’s going to kill the hostages.
I don’t support negotiating with terrorists, nor do I vote for liberals no matter what party they claim to be from.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:56 pmWhat I find incredibly offensive is the assertion that McCain is somehow an “Evil” on the level ( or just microscopically less) than the Marxist Socialist asshats on the other side.
Just because McCain doesn’t agree with the most radical version of every conservative principle, doesn’t mean he’s evil, he’s just not an Uber-conservative.
You know what, I am VERY VERY VERY cool with the idea of having someone a little less radical as a prospective president, from either side.
Here’s another thought.
If you want to admire someone for sticking to thier “Principles”, how about throwing a little respect McCain’s way? He’s the one guy who has stuck with his principles, regardless of who disagrees with him, every time. He does what he thinks is right, every time.
That may make him wrong sometimes, but not evil.
Liberals and thier racist friends are evil, let’s stop putting McCain into that category, it just makes me sick every time you do it.
It’s not choosing the lesser of two evils, it choosing between evil and not evil.
Pretty simple.
*UPDATE*
Wow, my comment is awaiting moderation again.
There’s not a single curse word in there. I guess I supported gay marriage too strongly, huh? Now all my comments must be moderated. Jeesh. That feels good.
[Para, whoa there pal! Do you seriously believe I would moderate you on purpose??? It is the filter. It's snagging many comments that it shouldn't and I'm clearing them out as fast as I can. You just have to be patient. - Rachel]
Okay then. It’s happened to me a lot lately and I figured since I’ve had so many people express thier outright disgust for me concerning my particular “principles” that I had been placed on some sort of list for bad posters or something. Forgive my ignorace, I was wrong.
June 9th, 2008 at 1:58 pmHold your nose and vote. And, get USED to it! You’ll be doing it for years. I have. The other alternative is to stick to your high principles and NEVER vote again. The consolation to this is to know you could NEVER vote for the wrong person. But, you could never vote for the right one, either!
I hold my nose and vote. I take the risk. It’s like falling in love. If you never do it, you’ll never have a broken heart. But, you’ll never know the other side, either. Take the risk.
June 9th, 2008 at 2:03 pmJust for starters:
June 9th, 2008 at 2:19 pmCivilian Conservation Corps
Civil Works Administration
National Recovery Administration
Works Progress Administration
This post has been linked to by Vox Day. He has been doing that a lot lately:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/06/she-gets-it.html
She gets it
June 9th, 2008 at 2:23 pmRachel Lucas figures out why many conservatives and Republicans won’t be voting for John McCain:
JIMMY: I guess I’m alone in my principles.
LENNY: There he goes, off to write the hit song “Alone in My Principles.”
For some reason, that little piece of That Thing You Do keeps popping into my head.
mightysamurai, since when can we count on any politician?
June 9th, 2008 at 2:27 pmFunny thing is, all those programs involved people working, not just “getting”. That was the “old” democrat way of doing things. I don’t think the FDR type of Democrat exists anymore.
June 9th, 2008 at 2:29 pmI keep thinking of this stuff like 20 minutes after I post.
To me the only difference between McCain and Obama is whether or not you get mayo with your shit sandwich.
Idea for a bumper sticker
VOTE FOR McCAIN when all else fails lower your standards.
June 9th, 2008 at 2:29 pmWhats real funny is most of those programs worked more or less. But I seem to recall an attempt to pass a law having welfare recipients actually work for their money being shot down as “racist”.
June 9th, 2008 at 2:36 pmI have been workign out west lately and seen the fruits of a lot of the CCC labor. The work was actually good and the workers are thought of a heroes these days, not people looking for a handout.
I wish we could go back to those “great works” projects, let people do something great with our money, not just get it for being born.
June 9th, 2008 at 2:39 pmYeah, McCain is just AWFUL isn’t he! Never mind he’s a hero and a patriot, if he’s not Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul, then he must be almost as evil as Obama.
Get a grip dude, it’s still John McCain you’re talking about. Most of us would be honored to have made 1/100th the contrubutions to America that he has. But yeah, keep comparing him to a piece of shit. That’s both realistic AND helpful!
The future of the Republican party is safe if we just bash John McCain enough! YAY!
June 9th, 2008 at 2:46 pmNot exactly the same thing. Most of those were job programs that were phased out as the prosperity of the 40’s made them unnecessary. In the case of the NRA, most of the truly heinous consequences of that program are still with us.
The proposal for nationalized health care is not a temporary job program, it’s a government grab of an entire industry and if it happens on any level in the next four years, we could elect Ron Paul to the Oval Office, and it still wouldn’t go away.
June 9th, 2008 at 2:52 pmSorry Rachel, although I still hope for you to be our Supreme Leader someday, the analogy is flawed. The Obama supporters calling themselves “principled” by not voting for McCain (and they are, de facto, supporting Obama, no matter how many times they tell themselves they are “voting their principles”) are not just buying the weed for their own kids, they are shoving the bong down *my* children’s throat… and it’s going to take a lot longer then four (or eight) years to remove it.
June 9th, 2008 at 2:53 pmMy business law professor in college was a practicing attorney. One of the first things he told us that the principles of right and wrong didn’t apply to the law - there was only legal and illegal. I think that’s where a lot of us are getting mixed up - we want our right and wrong values to fit into a political world and get upset when it doesn’t work. Politics is inherently about compromise, but if we’re true to our values, we should never compromise.
Some folks can see the disconnect and some folks can’t. A political point of view says that since I can’t have the perfect candidate, I’ll settle for the better of these two. A values perspective says that neither candidate aligns with my beliefs of what is right and what is wrong, therefore I’ll either abstain from voting altogether or cast my vote for a third party candidate that I can support.
I think it’s important to keep politics and values somewhat separated, but not completely apart. Think of them as first cousins - close enough to be related and bear some resemblance to each other, but not close enough to get married and have kids.
We want our values to influence politics and not the other way around. And to me, that’s the crux of the political choice I am making - which one of the two candidates uses their values to influence their political decisions and which one uses their politics to inform their values?
For what it’s worth, this same lawyer/professor also said that any time a client insisted on filing a lawsuit “for the principle of the thing”, he always asked for his fee up front rather than taking it on a contingency basis. (Moral: You might FEEL better about it, but you’re not going to win.)
June 9th, 2008 at 2:54 pmSarahK, you’re awesome for quoting That Thing You Do.
June 9th, 2008 at 3:22 pmAnd what happened the last time the Democrats tried to nationalize the healthcare system?
Of course, that still leaves you in the unfortunate position of voting in favor of damaging the country. It may be less damage, but it’s still damage.
It’s no more flawed or unreliable than your own premise.
You think that voting for McCain will do “less damage”. But what you don’t seem to realize is that if McCain wins, Congressional Republicans will blindly approve almost anything he does out of sheer party loyalty. With a Democrat in the White House they could at least be counted on to yell and scream and obstruct the crap out of everything he tries to do.
And what will voting for McCain accomplish? Do you deny that the general leftward slide of the Republican Party is at least partly due to the fact that for years conservatives have been blindly voting for whoever has an “R” next to his name?
I didn’t exactly say Obama would be better, I said I’m not convinced he would be worse than McCain.
Personally, I think they would be equally lousy in the White House, but McCain would get more of his liberal agenda passed.
June 9th, 2008 at 3:45 pmAh yes He’s such a great man an outstanding member of the Keating Five, Coauthor of the McCain–Feingold Act a lovely bit of restriction of your first amendment rights, wanted to increase taxes on tobacco and basically drive an industry out of business(we all know how the evil tobacco companies use subliminal advertising to get you hooked). He voted against Bush’s tax cuts, Supported Jim Jeffords when he turned independent losing the republican majority in the senate, coauthored the Climate Stewardship Acts (global warming BS) defended Kerry’s so called war record, is a supporter of amnesty for illegal immigrants.
I respect his military service but I don’t think he would be a good president.
The comparison that having Obama as president would be like eating a shit sandwich had been made earlier. and thats alright with you. But when I do the same about JOHN F’N McCAIN(said with reverence while bells ring out flowers bloom and angels sing)
June 9th, 2008 at 3:46 pmYou tell me I should get a grip? Dude your too funny for words.
Until he realizes the tax cuts are going “to the rich”. Then he’ll do a heel-face-turn and “reach across the aisle” to poke conservatives in the eye.
I’m not so sure. It’s a lot easier for a Senator to be against earmarks and pork than it is for a President.
Suppose a military spending bill loaded with earmarks gets to McCain’s desk. Would he veto it, and risk letting our troops go without?
He also wants to coddle terrorists and give them full Constitutional rights equal to a US citizen.
They stood up to Clinton and forced him to reform welfare. They stood up to him to kill Hillarycare.
And remember that Obama’s positions are miles to the left of anything Clinton (either of them) ever tried to do. Do you really think the Republicans will just sit there and take it when Obama tries to push through his ultra-Marxist agenda?
June 9th, 2008 at 3:58 pmI agree. Since when can we count on John McCain?
June 9th, 2008 at 3:59 pmPara, you keep making this claim that people who don’t support McCain consider him “evil”. But I have yet to see anyone actually refer to John McCain as “evil” in anything other than the figurative sense (”lesser of two evils”).
Where are all these people that apparently see John McCain as the Devil Incarnate?
So we should vote for him because he served in the military? That’s it?
Did I pass out and get teleported to Nicaragua circa 1981?
June 9th, 2008 at 4:01 pmSuppose that you had a guaranteed way of catching an Al Qaeda terrorist before he could carry out a suicide bombing, but in order to do so you had to steal a thousand dollars from someone. Would you do it? Sure, maybe. Probably. But suppose that it wasn’t guaranteed. Suppose the odds were exactly one in a billion; 999,9999,999 times out of 1,000,000,0000, you’ll wind up a thief and a dozen civilians still get murdered. Would you still steal the thousand dollars then? I wouldn’t. I absolutely wouldn’t.
That’s the situation here. Regardless of whether I vote for McCain, Obama, Nader, Rachel Lucas, or Zippy the Pinhead, the winner of the 2008 election will be exactly the same. I’m more likely to be struck dead by a meteor on my way to the polls than I am to decide the election with my vote.
That microscopic chance of making my country slightly better off simply isn’t worth violating my principles for. I can be bought, but not that cheaply.
June 9th, 2008 at 4:04 pmHere’s a candidate I would vote for
June 9th, 2008 at 4:12 pmhttp://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2008/06/i-was-over-at-tolewyns-house-other-day.html
That was a Republican majority in both houses that was a few short years removed from a historic takeover. In other words, they had political momentum and they knew it. I don’t think the same will be said of the Republican minority if Obama wins.
They won’t have to “sit there and take it,” all they’ll have to do is refuse to filibuster and then vote “No” and pretend they did everything they could do. There is nothing like the leadership that was in place during the welfare reform fight. Mark my words, let Obama get elected and there will be little effective resistance to his agenda in the first four years.
June 9th, 2008 at 4:14 pmToo much competition. But just for the sake of compleatness, via Dan Dreisbach:
It’s important to note that Dan is making a rather marked distinction between principle and analogy, which may very well confuse a few folks. What, exactly, is the principle involved in a vote for or against McCain? Quite frankly, Bob Barr violates as many of my closely held principles as does McCain, so I don’t really entertain the notion of voting libertarian, and staying home isn’t an option. I don’t think libertarianism is a fundamental principle of governance, and I’m not even sure that liberty trumps sovereignty for that matter. In fact, if you look at the classic debates between James Buchanan and Amartya Senn, both of whom won Nobel prises, the crux of the issue was that Buchanan trumped Senn by invoking sovereignty over liberty. That is, the issue isn’t whether or not you have the maximum freedom possible, but whether you can opt out.
This is a rather classic debate in philosophy, and I’d suggest that if you think the answer is obvious you simply haven’t bothered to read beyond Robert Nozick. What you find appealing isn’t principle itself, but “purity,” and this you have in common with the takfirists or Islamic fundamentalists, or ever the stalwart Marxists. The liberal tradition in the west is based on compromise. Totalitarianism is the real alternative. Indeed, libertarianism in extremis is really a form of westernized takfirism or orthodoxy.
You can mount a valid argument, however, by specifying the principle that McCain violates in such a way that I’m convinced. In that case I’d observe that the real issue is whether or not you think the “principle” can survive two presidential election cycles, because it’s generally recognized in political science that any third party in a two-party system has to be able to deny its “closest ideological neighbor” two opportunities for election before that third party contestant will be able to influence the major in his, or her, direction. Personally, I think Obama could do a lot of damage in eight years. Enough to end the game, in fact. That’s the risk you take in standing for principle. It’s more than just the loss of a child. It’s the loss of all children, forever. You will never again have a say.
So you’d better have a damn good argument on principle. That’s all I’m sayin’.
June 9th, 2008 at 4:15 pmThis is where for me there’s a heirarchy of principles, not just the one make-or-break on McCain’s amnesty, etc: I don’t see that as much different from Obama in the long run. Although McCain would be much improved by a good talking-to from Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (DR’s speech in the Lieberman-Warner debate on global warming is a welcome voice in the wilderness), I just think McCain would do the country much less harm. Especially the military.
June 9th, 2008 at 4:21 pmLying is against my principles. But if asked if I’d seen any Jews around during the Third Reich, and I knew where some were hiding, I hope that I’d violate that principle like Rome did Carthage. At times, the end DOES justify the means. I am principled against killing, but I have pulled guns twice in my life and was prepared to use them. I am principled against violence, but take krav maga – largely so I can avoid violence. But if I had to, I would put a smack down on someone.
Your principles are not a suicide pact between yourself and the universe.
June 9th, 2008 at 5:00 pmRL Hunter:
You had a lot in there so let me try to respond.
1) The keating 5. McCain was investigated but not charged or convicted. The Ethics Committee concluded that Glenn’s and McCain’s involvement in the scheme was minimal.
2) McCain -Feingold. GO read the bill before you comment on it. Find me something authored by McCain that takes away your right to free speech. Or better yet, I’ll save you some time. The parts you hate ( which everyone often quotes as being anti-free speech) belong to former ( ie: dead) MN Senator Paul Wellstone.
Furthermore, Senator Mitch McConnell sued the FEC on the basis of 1st ammd. grounds and the SCOTUS told him the law was indeed constitutional.
You can disagree with McCain, but his trying to bust up unions’ influence and elctioneering and soft money abuse just isn’t EVIL in my opinion.
One cannot have read and understand the bill and conclude that McCain was trying to “take away free speech”.
My guess is that most of you have never even read the bill, rather , you are parroting some blow hard talk show host.
June 9th, 2008 at 5:12 pmThen explain why Hillarycare didn’t go through. Did we have a Republican majority then? Did we have political momentum then?
There’s something you’re not considering.
WHY did the Republicans have the political momentum to force welfare reform? Because the American people were fed up with the ultra-liberal policies of the Democrats in general and Clinton in specific.
And let McCain get elected and there will STILL be little effective resistance to his agenda. In fact there may even be LESS resistance to his agenda from the Republicans.
I still fail to see how McCain is the better alternative.
June 9th, 2008 at 5:18 pmBecause every thing you don’t like about McCain is aplified by 100 times in Obama. He’ll have a Democrat congress to back him up and the Republicans will not be able to stop them.
A LOT of stuff can happen in 2 years. The first two years will be very weak for the Republicans, and if the Dems get a good foothold, they could make things worse for Republicans as far as future elections go. They could pass goofy election laws that greatly favor Democrats.
Think they won’t do it?
Think again.
June 9th, 2008 at 5:24 pmIt doesn’t matter which parts he specifically authored. He had NO opposition to the bill after those alterations were made, and as far as I’m aware he defends it to this day. So either McCain supported the curtailment of free speech, or he thought having a major legislative accomplishment under his belt was more important than the First Amendment.
Your call.
And the SCOTUS is never, ever, ever, ever, ever wrong, right?
(Incidentally, much of McConnell v. FEC has since been overturned by FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.)
So let me get this straight.
Democrats use class warfare to advance their agenda, it’s wrong.
McCain uses class warfare to advance his agenda, it’s perfectly okay with you?
In McConnell v. FEC, Justice Kennedy, joined by the Chief Justice, issued a 68-page dissenting opinion and appendix, noting that BCRA forces “speakers to abandon their own preference for speaking through parties and organizations.”
Justice Thomas issued a separate 25-page dissenting opinion noting that the Court was upholding the “most significant abridgment of the freedoms of speech and association since the Civil War.”
Justice Scalia issued a separate 19-page dissenting opinion, a “few words of [his] own,” because of the “extraordinary importance” of the cases.
I suppose none of them read or understood the bill either?
June 9th, 2008 at 5:36 pmYeah, just like they weren’t able to stop Hillarycare back when the Democrats had a majority in Congress.
Oh wait….
June 9th, 2008 at 5:37 pmWoot. One person that won’t make fun of me anymore down, 75 million or so to go. Well, won’t make fun of me for being a “conservative” and abjectly refusing, nay, verping *verp!* upon hearing mention of McLame. The rest of the reasons people make fun of me still probably apply…
Work on that too willya?
Love reading your stuff. I was turned on to you by The Evil Twin’s Wife’s Cleavage TM. She’s right, you rock.
Mr. Moderated Stewy Magooey
June 9th, 2008 at 6:05 pmIt’s going to be a long summer.
June 9th, 2008 at 6:11 pmI think we’re way past choosing, “the lesser of two evils.”
I’ve moved ahead to the, “what hill do I want to die on?” mindset because my choice for President is not on the table.
So, do I want to die on Obama’s hill, or on McCain’s? I think the record shows that appeasers and communists have a much shittier hill to die on, and there’s no appeal to any sort of eternal Comfort on their hills, either. The atheistic pedants will talk folks out of their senses until they wander out of the foxholes and into the line of fire.
Wait! Maybe it’s like that old joke: Do I wanna die peacefully and in my sleep, like my grandad did, or screaming and crying like the passengers in his car?
I didn’t say my position was superior, it’s just farther along the time line.
June 9th, 2008 at 6:37 pmWhat you find appealing isn’t principle itself, but “purity,” and this you have in common with the takfirists or Islamic fundamentalists, or ever the stalwart Marxists. The liberal tradition in the west is based on compromise. Totalitarianism is the real alternative.
Bingo.
June 9th, 2008 at 7:05 pmAgain, they had a specific plan for stopping it and they had leaders in the party that were committed to the cause of stopping it. Add that to the fact that there were probably enough Democrats opposed to the plan to prevent passage of the bill to say nothing of preserving the filibuster, and you have a very different situation than the one we face now. Who is it that you think will put together this rock-solid contingent of committed Senators to oppose this kind of legislation?
Yes, and right now most of the dissatisfaction is aimed at Republicans. If Obama is elected on a platform of “change” and enough down-ticket candidates ride his coat-tails to create strong majorities in both houses, it is highly unlikely that the Republican minority will be able to mount an effective enough defense. Some estimates have the Republicans as low as 42 in the Senate. You could find three Republican turncoats in this Congress without breaking a sweat.
June 9th, 2008 at 7:09 pmYour argument is self-defeating.
If there are no leaders in the party committed to stopping Obama’s liberal agenda, then there aren’t any committed to stopping McCain’s liberal agenda either.
Um, yeah, no.
The Democrats will not outlaw the filibuster. Ever.
For one thing, they don’t want it to come back and bite them when they are inevitably back in the minority. For another, they spent months whining and moaning about what an important tool for democracy the filibuster is back when Republicans were discussing the “nuclear option”. The size of the flipflop necessary to suddenly come out against the filibuster is simply not politically possible, even for them.
I didn’t say it was exactly the same, but to ignore the obvious similarities is folly.
Yes, right now the dissatisfaction is aimed at the Republicans.
June 9th, 2008 at 8:08 pmThe assumption implicit in that statement is that the two have the same agenda, they don’t. No matter how angry you are about McCain’s nomination (and I’m plenty angry about it myself), no honest analysis of their respective proposals can conclude that their differences are non-existent or even minor.
My statement had absolutely nothing to do with outlawing the filibuster. I was simply pointing out that there were probably not enough Democrats on board to even pass the bill on a straight vote, much less enough of them to break a Republican filibuster.
And it will continue to be for at least the next election cycle and probably the next two. Republicans have royally screwed the pooch in the last few years and it will probably be at least two cycles before we can regain the Congress. That makes the occupant of the White House critically important.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:17 pmReading the parent’s argument, I considered how to apply that to premarital, teen sex. The answer used to be the same as these parents’ - Marilyn Monroe, before she acquired her Marilyn Monroe name, recognition, and Hollywood (and Washington, D.C.) presence, was forced into marriage by her parents, at age 16, to keep her from ‘running around’. I guess they followed the Bible, ‘it is better to marry than to burn’.
Today parents and schools and such buy the kids condoms. Why not provide the pot, too?
That is, unless the parents are disciplined, unless they teach the kids about morals, responsibility, discipline, and honor.
I say, if the parents are going to buy the kids pot, also get the kids handguns without training, off-road vehicles without helmets or classes, and motorcycles without helmets. Thin the gene pool.
June 10th, 2008 at 12:24 amRegarding the issue of whether the Republicans will fight against an Obama Presidency and Democrat-majority Congress, it has been brought up that Republicans defeated HillaryCare, as well as forcing Clinton into Welfare Reform. I think the situation is completely different at this time.
When those things happened, it was a few short years since Republicans had been basking in the aura of Reagan (no matter how much the Left tried to smear him - he was the Great Communicator, and got his message out, which made a huge difference in how his own party viewed him). Also, even though G.H.W. Bush was not the greatest choice to ride Reagan’s coat-tails, the Party felt cheated when Clinton was elected, because of how much cover the Media had given him on his lies, among other things.
So you had the Republican-oriented members of the public, who felt cheated, as well as having come off a political high from the Reagan era, plus Republicans in Congress who were feeling not only cheated, but were still feeling muscular, due to the double boost during Reagan of a President who had a solid agenda in line with theirs, but one who could get the Public on board by being able to articulate it excellently. Not to mention the fall of the Berlin Wall, which was ascribed (rightly or wrongly) to Reagan’s policies, which gave them a solid testosterone boost. They were ready to go to bat against anyone who pissed in their Wheaties.
Now, we have an Administration and a Party that has been successfully demonized by the media due to lackluster and mediocre defense of its policies, poor communication skills, and an enemy that is hard to define in the face of a coordinated effort to label such definitions Racist. The country is suffering War Fatigue (helped along by the Media), numerous people have been convinced of Anthropogenic Global Warming, Republican Lawmakers have been spotlighted in scnadals, and even numerous people who are nominally conservative in their basic beliefs are spouting the mantra that, “We need SOME kind of change”.
Basically, I think the backbone has been beaten out of them, and it’s going to take a long, hard road of pain before they’re ready to fight against the Democrats, if they don’t have some support in the White House. You may say that they won’t have that support if McCain is President, but I think his feet would bother him if they were held to the fire, where Obama wouldn’t care if Republicans hated him and clamored for him to NOT do some of the things he’s undoubtedly going to do. In fact, he’d probably just use that as a new message of Racism to beat them down even more.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:17 amAny assumptions about McCain’s agenda are yours, not mine. I never said they had exactly the same platform, I said they were both pushing a liberal agenda. And they are. Surely you won’t deny THAT.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:26 amAnd your solution to this is to:
A) Keep them in office,
B) Elect a Republican President who is more despised by the conservative base than the rest of the Republican Party combined?
How does that work, exactly?
June 10th, 2008 at 8:29 amIt doesn’t work and that is why ‘holding-their-nose’ McCain supporters never answer how to fix the Repub problem in congress.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:51 amVoting Dem-lite - McCain - will keep the country club Repubs going left. Repubs have to fail before they rebuild conservatively. It’s now or when the Dems have a veto proof congress.
We start with the conservatives at the local and state level. We support them in whatever way that we can (money, time, effort, etc.) in an effort to groom them as challengers for the current crop of RINOs. In addition, we seek out the current national politicians who are committed to the core values of limited government, strong foreign policy, etc.