What Do You Mean, I HAVE To Vote For Rudy?
By Icythus Posted in 2008 — Comments (111) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
So yesterday I was out campaigning for a local State Senate candidate (here in Virginia, we have our state elections in off years). Over lunch I got to discussing politics with a fellow volunteer.
She asked me who I was supporting for 2008. I told her I hadn't made up my mind yet, but was leaning toward either Romney or Thompson. I then off-handedly said that I would not vote for Guiliani.
Her reply was, "Well, in the general, you'd have to [if he wins the nomination]."
What?
I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that this was a democracy. I wasn't aware that I HAVE to vote for ANYONE.
I told her flat out that I would not vote or campaign for Guiliani. If he were the nominee, I would sit 2008 out.
"You can't do that, that's just wrong," was her response.
I want to settle this once and for all. If Rudy gets the nomination, and runs against Hillary, I hope to God he wins. I believe he would make a much better C-in-C and Chief Executive than she would. But I cannot bring myself to cast my vote, which I hold to be sacred (an anachronistic concept, to be sure, but one that I am intent on holding onto nonetheless) for a man whose personal life is abhorrent and who doesn't seem to care a jot about the murder of over one million children EVERY YEAR. In my mind, that attitude is no different than if he were to believe that the Holocaust, while not something he would do, was really a matter of personal choice by Germany and not something that the US should have interfered with. Such a man, IMHO, is unworthy of the office of POTUS, and unworthy of my endorsement for that office.
There are a lot of different ways to advance the cause of life and conservatism. Voting Republican is only one of them. The time and money I spend on political campaigning each year can easily be given to my local Pregnancy Center, or Project Rachel, or in prayer at my church's Adoration Chapel, or to any one of the good men and women we have running for re-election in the House and Senate.
I do not HAVE to vote for anybody. The last time I checked, this is America.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have helped out, but it should have been western European led, and they should have been doing most of the heavy lifting.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I don't have one problem with us doing most of the heavy lifting. There's nothing to criticize US action there about, because the major European powers can't lead such operations anymore. They lack the technology.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
They are able to build fighters that are competitive with ours. The french and germans have tanks that rival the Abrahms the current Leopard may even be better.
France is able to mount operations in its former colonies on its own. So is Britain.
What they lack is the will to deal with their tough problems. Adn why should they develop it ? Theres always us.
But back to the main thrust of my point. We got stuck with a strategy, tactics and ROE that was horribly disadvantageous. We got stuck with a role in the fiasco that was all downside and no upside.
That was the position the Clinton's put us in. It was a failure of diplomacy with our allies, a failure of common sense and a failure to ask the needed question "just what is our interest in this". This is what we got from the Clintons last time, its what we will get again.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
You see, backbone is not just about being willing to use your forces. You have to actually have the forces in the first place.
That's where this argument goes totally astray. The claim that Europe 'does not have the technology' to mount a major military operation of this type is true. But it is not equivalent to a claim that Europe lacks the know-how to build such technology - a claim that would be untrue.
European countries could build sophisticated and well-funded armed forces if they wanted to. But they haven't, so when a particular issue arises, Europe is not in a position to respond.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
"I want to settle this once and for all. If Rudy gets the nomination, and runs against Hillary, I hope to God he wins. I believe he would make a much better C-in-C and Chief Executive than she would. But I cannot bring myself to cast my vote, which I hold to be sacred (an anachronistic concept, to be sure, but one that I am intent on holding onto nonetheless) for a man whose personal life is abhorrent and who doesn't seem to care a jot about the murder of over one million children EVERY YEAR..."
I've made no qualms that I can't and won't vote for Giuliani in the general, period. As such, I think I should be applauding this post, but I'm actually not.
Your view seems to me to be, at best, slightly mixed-up. You hope he wins but you won't vote for him? If his views/life are really that offensive to you, I don't see that you would want him to win. And if you do "hope to God" that he wins, I can't understand why you wouldn't vote for him. You are simply asking to not be taken seriously. Basically, with a post like this, it becomes believable that you are one of those people who, as we all hear about so often, will genuinely declare that he won't be voting for Giuliani, but once you get into the voting booth and contemplates 4 years of Hillary, will hastily pull the lever for him. Even though I agree with your conclusion, you're shooting your own credibility here.
________________________________________
Passionate Christian First
Die-Hard Conservative Second
Patriotic American Third
Dedicated Republican Forth
Yes, the order is important.
IF Rudy is the nominee, then for the sake of the nation, I hope he wins. He would be better than any Democrat.
However, what offends me is the idea that, because I believe this, I MUST vote for him. I MUST do no such thing. To me, a vote is an endorsement of a particular person for a particular job. If I could cast a negative vote AGAINST Hillary, I would do it in a heartbeat. But I can't do that. I can only vote FOR a presidential candidate, and if it is a choice between Clinton and Guiliani, I would be unable to vote FOR either of them.
I will not take one step forward, two steps back. I will not be told that I must abandon my principles and convictions for the sake of electibility. And I do not believe that Hillary Clinton will destroy America. This country is to great for her to bring down.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
We did not say it to you, but you could not wait to give your response. I hope you have "settled this once and for all" because I remember several of these same diaries from other posters.
in fact, let's just say it is now settled. No more diaries about how other can't tell you (us) what to do. We agree, we all can make our own choices. cheers.
Molon Labe!
Nobody was telling this guy he didn't have the right to vote or not vote any way he wanted. The friend's statements that the OP is whining about made no such assertion, they just used "have to" in the very common colloquial meaning that "There's no good alternative" to voting for Giuliani.
Think about it, lots of times people say "you have to" without implying any compulsion. It's one thing for the OP to disagree with his friend's view that there's no good alternative to voting for Giuliani if he's the nominee, but where does he get off acting like his friend was threatening any compulsion?
Actually I know exactly where he gets off. People who are self-indulgent (e.g. as indicated by basing their vote on what makes them feel good, rather than what they believe is good for their country), often enjoy having the feeling of righteous indignation. The don't get enough valid opportunities for that feeling in everyday life, so they need to manufacture offense from innocuous statements in order to satisfy their righteous indignation quota. We most often see this mentality with leftists, finding sexism and racism under every bed, but GDS'ers are getting pretty good at it too.
This is a warning.
We don't need Guiliani to beat Clinton (or any other Democrat, for that matter). So maybe instead of trying to shout down those on your own side who don't view their votes as the corner hooker ("How DARE you stand on principle, you whining liberal!), you should be working to nominate somebody who doesn't totally offend a major portion of the party's base.
Just a thought.
Oh, and for the record, if the Republican candidate was an avowed tax hiker and for years had defended big government programs, and the fis-cons were declaring that they under no circumstances could vote for them, I would support them in their choice, even if I didn't feel the same way myself. The Republican Party exists to serve us, not the other way around.
at least, your OP does.
It was all about how people have no right to force you to vote a particular way, when you *know* that nobody ever claimed that right.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
they want a king to proclaim abortion a crime throughout the land played their card and lost. The threat has been made and Rudy only rises in the polls. It is kind of like the Wizard of Oz, he makes threat after threat and then is shown as weak. The reality of this entire exercise is that Republicans WILL pick off more and more of the pro life crowd and only the "last dog dies" crowd will remain, and they will be shown to be a group with much less power than they had only a year ago.
I may sound harsh, but this is the reality of it all. Even the annointed Thompson is running to the middle.
Molon Labe!
I am not aiming at making abortion a "crime throughout the land. I want to overturn a ruling that even many liberal legal scholars admit is an abomination to the constitution. I want a federalist and republican system that our forefathers wrought. I want the issue to be decided state by state.
Then I want to fight like hell to make it illegal in my state.
If you can't articulate the views of some on the federalist side of this issue with accuracy, then don't jump in the argument.
The GOP may well win without the pro-life votes. Fine. But then the whole construct falls down. Next will be a candidate that favors high taxes. Next a candidate who favors forcing gay marriage on all states (as with abortion), and next will come socialized health care, etc etc etc.
When you say enough is enough it will be too late. The rest of us will already be gone.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
The problem is not with federalists, it is with those who can not take yes for an answer. Rudy and Fred say they are federalists, they say they will appoint federalist judges. I doubt this thread was created to debate federalism, if you do not, then reread it.
Molon Labe!
if you don't, you're giving Hillary a half vote and you get to live with those consequences just like I had to live with giving Bill a half vote when I voted for Perot back in 1992.
Oz
Read my most recent story, "Immigration may be Hillary's undoing" on First Cut Politics
...and the Party's going to have enough troubles this election cycle without also having to figure out which of its putative members will abide by the results of the nomination process, and which won't.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Nowhere did I see anything that made me swear to vote Republican when I registered for that party. No where did I see anything that requires me to vote for the party I vote in the primaries for. That's the whole point of having generals! Otherwise we would simply tally the totals from each party's primary and declare a winner.
If the majority (or plurality) of the party has abandoned the principles for which I have voted and participated in the Republican Party for, then I have no choice but to refuse to vote for that party. It's simply absurd to insinuate that anyone has to vote for their party's nominee simply because that is what the party decided.
If the party wants my, and many others SoCons, support in the general, then they need to wake up and nominate someone we can vote for (read: anyone but Rudy Giuliani).
_________________________________________
Passionate Christian First
Die-Hard Conservative Second
Patriotic American Third
Dedicated Republican Fourth
Yes, the order is important.
Moe, I submit that this policy would be more harmful to the party than anything, and that's why the party doesn't do it.
The party would rather keep the core of people who would vote for ANY Republican, plus snag the votes from the sometimes-Republican voters who favor the nominee, than to shut them ALL out and shrink down to that core 40%.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
But if these guys are allowed to declare that they aren't going to abide by the result of the primaries - which they are [so allowed], by the way - then I'm equally allowed to declare that in my opinion we don't need them mucking up our headcount in the first place.
I'm aware that it's a message that some don't like hearing. Trust me, I could be considerably ruder (without sacrificing accuracy) about how I'm making it, too.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
And your civility is appreciated, being one of those people who does not feel bound by the primary :-)
This is politics, all of it, though. We're all trying to sway each other toward our views, trying to win when we can and sticking to our principles when we must.
And making a huge mess of it in the process.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
It would be terrible, unfortunate blow to American democracy if any party ever declared that members were required to vote for the party designated candidate. Not only would it put an end to broad participation in primaries (which in itself might be not be so bad) but it would put an end to the primacy of the individual running over the party they represent - and that last blow to the original hope for our government would be disasterous.
No-one is suggesting that there should be any form of control over how an individual votes in the general election. It's a secret ballot for goodness sake, so how could anyone exercise control over that?
The point being argued is that parties are allowed to control who participates in choosing their candidates. It's freedom of association.
The suggestion here is that people who participate in a party's primaries have a moral obligation to accept the rules of the game. If you don't like the rules or don't fancy your guy's chances, don't play.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Who is breaking rules of the primary game? If we agree that an individual republican has no compulsion to vote for the republican nominee in the general then what rule is anyone breaking here? In fact, the entire party is better served by these people making their intentions know that the party can choose their nominee with full information.
Of course, the primary rules vary from state to state, but I know of none that expect people to promise to support the winner of a primary before being allowed to vote in that primary.
What some people are arguing in this thread is that people should be under a moral obligation to accept the result of an election they choose to participate in. I don't happen to agree, but check out the words of the GOP's first President. To him, that is what the civil war was about. You can't particpate in an election and then deny the result if you don't win.
I don't happen to think that should apply to primaries. I think registering as a member of a party is a tactical decision. If I were resident in MA and allowed to vote there I would want to vote in the Democratic primary. That is, after all, how you get to choose your legislator. I would register in such a way as to allow that. (Not sure of the rules in MA, so I don't know if I would have to register as a Democrat to do that or not).
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
No, I'm not referring to the organization. I'm referring to what would happen if your suggestion that only those willing to support the eventual nominee should participate in the Republican primary were put into practice.
What you would see happening is large numbers of people leaving the Republican Party, either leaving politics altogether or forming a third party. This would divide the conservative/libertarian movement to the point that the Democrats would dominate politics for decades to come. The Reagan Democrats would be a thing of the past, with those who came over possibly even going back to the Democrats, since the main reason they became Republicans would be moot.
This site is generally populated by conservatives, so you don't really have much opportunity, but I do hope that you take the same opportunity to speak to the Christine Whitmans, Olympia Snowes, and Lincoln Chafees (oh, wait...) of the Party about this as you do to the rest of us.
Is there some general pattern that shows the GOP gets more support where it has open primaries than where it has closed primaries?
I suspect evidence would be difficult to gather, as primary rules, though they vary by state, are usually common to both parties in the state. Thus a state with closed primaries would, if your theory is correct, have lower support for both main parties.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Perhaps I didn't elaborate enough. The case that I was making (or rather, apparently only started to make) was that many of the social conservatives/Reagan Democrats would not participate in the Republican primaries because they would not want to commit to voting for someone like Rudy. I'll put myself in that category. Being a Republican is all well and good, but I won't commit to voting for someone whom I believe holds immoral, indefensible positions. The result would mean that nominees would be more liberal and that those nominees would not enjoy the support of social conservatives in the general election. Instead, those people would not vote, vote third party, or vote Democrat on other issues, being that the social issues would be a wash.
On the whole allowing wider participation tends to bring in independents and moderates to the process. While it would probably be difficult to prove - each election is, after all, _sui generis_, open primaries probably produce more moderate results than closed primaries.
Certainly the move to blanket primaries - partially overturned by the courts and legislature - was the initiative of moderate Republicans who felt that closed primaries produced extreme candidates unable to win in the general election.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
At least not where this is concerned.
Look, it's pretty uncontroversial to note that a certain candidate does or does not excite people, with the implication of that being that unexcitable candidates will cause at least some people to stay home because they just don't feel that motivated to vote for them. Remember Dole the candidate?
However, someone on this board suggests that a given candidate's policy positions might make them stay home on election day, and the whining begins!* I guess the theory is that, since we're not the average marginal voter who pays no attention to the election until the last 30 days, and then only on the margins, we're somehow morally *obligated* to vote or the party spits on us, whereas the party comes crawling to average marginal voter on hands and knees? Pffff. Count me out of that.
And again I offer the observation that if Ron Paul actually won the Republican nomination, about 80% or more of these Rudynistas would refuse to vote for him in the general, so I find their hysterical carping to be pretty... hysterical, actually.
*I'm not saying you're whining, I'm referring to the many Rudynistas on this thread who, in a fit of delicious irony, have petulantly whined about the OP whining.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
But I don't see why I should shut up about the fact that I don't think that people should vote in Presidential primaries unless they're prepared to accept an unfavorable result. If they can't be counted on, I don't want them in the count.
Again, they can do it. They just shouldn't.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
...after looking over the data I determine that there is any possibility that Ron Paul will somehow manage to win the Republican nomination, I will not only not vote in the primary; I will quit the Party altogether (which will, by the way, also mean my retirement from political blogging). Because I didn't sign up to be an enabler of 9/11 Truthers and white supremacists.
Did that answer your question?
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
To try to save at least one sane political party in this country to try and stop him from getting the nomination, that's your prerogative. It isn't mine. And I frankly find both your and Bob's arguments to the effect that this makes me some kind of freerider to be pretty offensive, and in addition unsupported by any logical basis.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
[Inflammatory comment deleted before publishing.]
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
A Rudy Giuliani nomination threatens to split this party wide open in a way that no other candidate with a serious shot at the nomination ever has. You mark my words, if he wins, there are going to be a, uh, crapload of bridges burned that will never be able to be rebuilt.
You look at where we are right now, Moe. You and I have very differing views on a lot of political things, but we're friends. We get along famously 99% of the time, or so I'd like to think. And look where we are right now. I wish Rudy had never decided to run, but now that he has, I wish I didn't have to take seriously the possibility that he might win. His candidacy is not in the long-term best interests of the Republican party, and I wish more people realized that.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
But I'll leave it off with this: I ain't voting for Rudy in the primary. I'm suspecting that Bob isn't, either. So it's not like I/we're taking this position because it helps my/our guy personally.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
If you will also speak out against independents voting in states like California and New Hampshire, that's a perfectly consistent and reasonable position to take, and I can't argue with it.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
as Gandalf pointed out upthread, a lot of the same people making this point were not so upset when the people who voted for Lieberman in the primary also voted for him in the general. Wonder why that is?
As I said, nobody's complaining about those registered Republicans who vote about half the time (if that), it's those of us who you could count on to vote hell or high water who are getting peed on in this particular scuffle, in an attempt to go after the half-the-time voters. That ought to cause some people some pause, here.
You know who's the closest to me in this primary on the issue I care about the most? Mike Huckabee. Will I be pulling the level for Huckabee if he's still in the race come Tennessee primary time? No, I will not. Will I be sending him any money? No, I will not. I'm not going to vote for a guy who called a significant part of dedicated voting Republicans racist non-Christians, even if I'm on his side of that particular issue (immigration). If the Rudy people aren't willing to make that same kind of realization, then they have to just pretty much accept the electoral calculus that's going to result. You can't shame the politically informed into voting against their conscience, no matter how hard you try.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
Even if you do live in one of those states where one doesn't actually have to be a Republican to vote in the Republican primary, it's still kind of sleazy to do it. If you're not a Republican, and you don't feel obligated to support the Republican candidate, that's fine. It's a free country. But have the decency to stay out of our primary.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
Careful here. Do you really believe this? Of course it's sleazy for someone to vote in the primary in an attempt to sabotage the final results with no intention of voting in the general for the person they voted for in the primary even if s/he were to win. That could almost be classified as tampering with the election. But that's not what anyone here on RedState is in favor of or saying s/he will do!
I'm a proud Republican, and I have been since I first registered (and years before that even though I couldn't vote), but that in no way makes me feel obligated to vote for the R on the ballot just because he's an R. I've refused to vote R before, and I'll do it again. I've even voted *gasp* Democrat (on local issues) because I thought that candidate was better than the R.
My second point is that your are entirely inconsistent here. I didn't see you, or indeed ANY Republicans, complaining about those Democrats in Connecticut who refused to abide by their primary results and ended up voting for a 3rd party candidate *because he best suited their values*. Indeed, I seem to remember a lot of cheering and high-fiving being directed at those brave Democrats who dared to buck their party and vote for the person that best suited their principles, even AFTER he lost in the primary! Now a lot of those people are changing the rules of engagement for fellow Republicans. I suppose one could say "that's politics" (demanding a different set of rules for your friends/allies than for your enemies) but we're supposed to be the party that is based on principles and Truth, regardless of politics. The Democrats do a much better job at that game.
Perhaps this is one of the reason the Party is beginning to destroy itself: we have adopted the procedures and basic world views of our opponents. Continue in that, and we'll lose not just 2008 but every other foreseeable election.
____________________________________
Passionate Christian First
Die Hard Conservative Second
Patriotic American Third
Dedicated Republican Fourth
Yes, the order is important.
Why can't you be an honest independent and stand aside while the various parties choose their nominees? If you like one of them, vote. If you don't like any of them, stay home. That's what you say you're going to do anyway.
It seems to me that trying to hijack a major party's fund-raising and GOTV machinery to support somebody you like when you have no intention of donating to, working for, or even voting for that Party's nominee unless it's your guy is remarkably self-centered. I'm sure you call it 'adherence to principle' and the height of 'morality' but from where I sit you're trying to get other people to come build your barn when you have no intention of helping to build theirs. Oh yeah, you don't have to, because you're the only one who matters. There is no more principled and moral a stand, is there.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
Why can't you be an honest independent and stand aside while the various parties choose their nominees?
I vote in Republican party primaries because not only does the party invite me to join free of conditions or restrictions, but also because the party primaries are paid for using my tax dollars, and not only that, but the party primaries in my state allow people who aren't even registered Republicans to vote.
In the 2006 primary election in California, there were 2,033,642 registered Republicans who voted in the primary, along with 2,624,550 Democrats and 470,614 non-partisan voters (~200k third party voters voted, too). Here's the participation report and here are the results.
It's possible that those 600,000 people include the difference makers. Let's say hypothetically Ronald Reagan is beating Richard Nixon 55-45 among Republicans. That gives Reagan a 203,364 vote lead. Now, registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans 5-4, so it's reasonable lacking other data to suppose that roughly 44% of those non-partisans might vote Republican. If we multiply the ratio through, that gives us a first estimate of 210,020 non-partisan voters int he Republican primary.
So conceivably, the Republican party is allowing people who are not Republicans to hand this hypothetical race to Nixon over Reagan, even though Reagan was up ten points among Republicans.
So what we have here is a Republican party that not only invites non-partisans to vote in its primaries, but is abandoning the primary to the non-partisans.
If the race is less than a 10 point gap, then the non-partisan voters don't even have to break heavily for the underdog for them to change the election!
So yeah, you know what? The party establishment is 100% A-OK with non-Republicans tipping the outcomes of each and every primary that's not a total rout. We know this because the party at any time could opt out of letting independents vote in the primaries. So I feel perfectly fine as someone who's a registered Republican since I turned 18, who's voted for the R probably 19 out of every 20 times all the way down the ticket, occasionally voting elsewhere despite voting in the primary.
Respectfully,
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
Neil, correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand the rules of California's primaries, you would be welcome to vote in the Democratic primary, and your vote would be tallied, but it would not count to deciding who the Democratic candidate is. Only votes cast by registered Democrats would count for that purpose.
Thus in your scenario Nixon could be adjudged to have more votes in total, but if Reagan had more votes from registered Republicans, he would be the Republican candidate.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
For a couple years, the case was that anyone could vote in any party's primary for any office, or even switching up party primaries between races. So a Democrat could vote for Nixon for Governor, Boxer for Senate, and Pelosi for Congress. And the votes would count.
This created an interesting situation back in 1998. There was only one credible Republican running for governor, Dan Lungren, but a few Democrats were running. So when the Democratic debate was held, Lungren wriggled his way on state, because it was a blanket primary. So he was up there beside Al Checci, Jane Harman, and Gray Davis, taking pot shots at the whole Democratic way of doing things, heh.
But then the parties sued, and that was thrown out. So now only independents and party members get to vote in the primary, and the parties even can opt out of the independents getting to vote. I think most third parties do so, but the Republicans and Democrats have not.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
"Why can't you be an honest independent and stand aside while the various parties choose their nominees?"
Because I'm not an independent. I'm a Republican. I believe in Republican values. I believe in smaller government, lower taxes, freedom of religion, speech, etc. In short, I believe all of what the Republican party HAS BEEN. I won't simply roll over and play dead if the Republican party tries to change in a way that is unacceptable for us.
"It seems to me that trying to hijack a major party's fund-raising and GOTV machinery to support somebody you like when you have no intention of donating to, working for, or even voting for that Party's nominee unless it's your guy is remarkably self-centered."
Let's face the facts here and be honest. Giuliani supporters are the REAL hijackers. The Republican party has been actively pro-life and pro-family since the days of Regan. YOU are the ones trying to change the party's values, not I. If you change my party to something I can no longer support, don't be suprised that I don't vote for it! It's paramount to those liberal Democrats who are still shocked that everyone in Georgia, Texas, etc. suddenly started voting Republican!
And of course my vote is going to be self-centered. What a rediculous thing to even type. Actually, I'm laughing at the sheer idiocy of such an accusation. I am a thinking, calculating person who actually thinks about the result of my vote, and how that vote will affect ME and reflect MY values. Yes, I see a vote for Giuliani as counter to MY interests, in the same way I saw a vote for Claire McCaskill, John Kerry, Al Gore, etc. as counter to MY interests. Welcome to democracy bud, where we vote what we want, not what the establishment wants us to vote. If you're not so self-centered, I suggest YOU change party affiliations and start voting for the party of guilt and self-loathing (especially if you're a white male). Or you could move to Iran and participate in their "elections".
Before continuing your baseless accusations that SoCons are somehow disloyal and scum for trying to "hijack" a party (in an attempt to get the party to REMAIN TRUE to current principles), I once again would like you to answer my questions regarding the Connecticut revolt against the Democratic party-annointed in 2006. Did you REALLY think that they were vile, disloyal, and paramount to attempted hijacking, or did you applaud their "convictions" and their willingness to stand up against "The Machine"? I was around 2 years ago. I read the posts. The general concensus was that it was applaudable and brave. How hypocritical, how sleazy, how Democrat-acting of you to applaud in the other party what you condemn in your own.
_______________________________________
Passionate Christian First
Die-Hard Conservative Second
Patriotic American Third
Dedicated Republican Fourth
Yes, the order is important.
You're not being told what to do. You're being told that you're wrong to do what you're threatening to do. The difference is important.
And if you think that your comment to Bob is acceptable discourse for this site, think again. It is not to be repeated. Do you understand me?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
If Giuliani's supporters are 'hijackers' because his policy positions differ from W's, was Reagan a 'hijacker' too? And this assumes that abortion is the only hijackable issue. Is it hijack every time a candidate has some policy positions different from a previous candidate? Which would be every election.
Sorry, calling it a hijack if a candidate you don't agree with contests and wins a primary is just facile.
Bob was talking about a different scenario: being willing to participate in a primary when you are only a conditional supporter of the party. Not sure I agree with Bob's position on this, but it is totally different from classifying every candidate as a 'hijacker'.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
- I'm not an independent. I'm a Republican.
Yeah, we get that. You vote in the Republican primary but you don't sign up to elect the winner of the primary unless it's your guy. You are a Party Of One.
- Let's face the facts here and be honest. Giuliani supporters are the REAL hijackers.
Please stop making this all about you. You don't like Giuliani. The next guy who wants to vote in the primary but also wants to take his marbles and go home won't play if it's The Mormon. The guy after that won't play if it's the fellow with the trophy wife. This isn't about what you don't like. It's about people who won't play well with others. They want to be in the club, but they don't want to pay any dues unless they win all the votes about the field trips.
- YOU are the ones trying to change the party's values, not I.
You don't know what my positions are. If you did, you wouldn't have said that. You imagine that anyone who does not like your "take my marbles and go home" act must therefore be opposed to your politics. You are confusing your politics with your methods.
- baseless accusations that SoCons are
This isn't about SoCons. There are many SoCons who have expressed their hope that their candidate will win the primary, but who also understand that they are part of a coalition and that they will not personally always get their way. So don't try to make this about SoCons, and don't try to speak for all SoCons. Perhaps you can speak for "people who want to take their marbles and go home unless they get their way."
- I won't simply roll over and play dead if the Republican party tries to change in a way that is unacceptable for us.
I think I see the problem here. The terms "I" and "us" are concrete for you, while "the Republican party" is an abstraction. "It" might try to change. It sounds like you view the Republican Party the way a Democrat views Big Oil. It's just this thing out there. The notion that these entities are groups of people, and that those people are every bit as real as "I" and "us," is missing from your formulation. Here's news: those people all have votes, too. If "the Republican Party" does something, it's because "the Republicans" -- the human beings, not the abstraction -- voted that way. You'll have lost a vote. "But if I don't win, I'm not gonna play." Yeah, we get that.
- Or you could move to Iran
If a pig gets stuck in Iran, does it squeal?
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
I'm a SoCon who has gone a few rounds with Galdalf in the past.
You said, "I think I see the problem here. The terms "I" and "us" are concrete for you, while "the Republican party" is an abstraction."
I agree that he only thinks about himself. He seems to wants us all to admire and reward his ranting stubborness. Instead he displays his petulant disrespect for other individual Republican's votes. Spoiled brat comes to my mine.
=============
Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!
Between "I won't vote for anyone who's not [my guy]" and "I won't vote for Rudy." You're smart enough to know that.
I'd venture to say that Rudy is the first guy with a serious shot at the nomination that any of us who are saying this have ever been honestly unable to vote for in the general. And I will not vote for him, and won't even feel bad about it.
If that means you think I shouldn't donate this election cycle to Sununu, Coleman, Bruning, or anyone else, or cast my vote for Marsha Blackburn, that's your right to feel that way. Of course, I'll keep doing it, but if Rudy does get the nomination, I am going to have to think pretty hard about some things, no doubt.
And again, if the contention here is that anyone who would ever refuse to vote for *any* Republican who cleared the primaries is a bad Republican, then I just have to say "horsepuckey," unless the person saying it supported David Duke, and would promise to support Ron Paul if he won the primary.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
I wish people such as yourself would stop pretending that this is anything but being about you.
You admit you want him to win, but you can't vote for him. What possible explanation for that can there be, but you don't "feel" good about voting for him, you feel "tainted" or something, and thus can't vote for him.
That's fine, that's your choice. But I wish you'd admit that you are doing it to feel good about yourself, not because you think it's best for the country, because it's obviously not what you think.
Jindal/Palin '16
If, then, you refuse to vote in the general election, your vote is effectively cast for "horrible".
I'm sorry, I won't humor you. Not voting in an election like this is politically immature and tantamount to shirking your democratic responsibilities.
It's as simple as this: there will be Supreme Court justices appointed by the next president. Hillary will give us R.B. Ginsgurg's twin sister. How's that for the pro-life cause?
Whatever Rudy's personal opinions, he just might appoint a judge you would find acceptable.
A previous commenter hit the nail on the head: it ain't all about you. And when you realize that, then you'll be on the road to political maturity.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
Not voting in an election like this is politically immature and tantamount to shirking your democratic responsibilities.
Exactly. I'd take out the word "politically," it's just immature, period. It's wanting to feel good over wanting what's best for the country.
Jindal/Palin '16
for none of the above.
If you genuinely feel that there is no measurable difference between the choices.
If you feel you don't know enough to make a good choice.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
There is no difference between not voting and voting for "none of the above", and both are irresponsible.
(Please, don't go off on some tangent about how we should have a "none of the above" choice on the ballot, and if it got above 50% have a new election, that's an interesting (although impractical and probably unconstitutional) idea, but it doesn't exist now)
Jindal/Palin '16
Two if you feel your choice would come down to a coin toss do us all a favor and don't vote.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
that Rudy is an improvement over Hillary from the pro-life perspective. He's not. Four years of pro-abortion judges is better than eight years, not even counting the damage to the party and pro-life movement.
So why should we care if a third-party split helps Hillary over Rudy? Pro-lifers can well afford to take the path of idealism, since short-term pragmatism leads in the same direction.
To base that claim on.
To counter is the man's statements about what he will do
The team he has put in place to advise him
His past positions on issues not consistent with liberal judges.
I will admit to being impressed by the way you make your statements with such certainty.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
The man has promised to not be effectively pro-life. He has a long history to support his beliefs being socially liberal. And he's made it clear a judge can fit his criteria for "strict constructionist" and still support Roe.
The claim you are making is that any judicial picks he makes will be as bad as the Wicked Witch of Arkansas.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I agree that Rudy's picks would be better than Hillary's. But a vote for Roe is a vote for Roe.
Nobody's denying that Rudy would govern better than Hillary. The question is whether that's worth sacrificing what the pro-life movement has been working for over so long. In the end, I see President Rudy leading to more dead kids than President Hillary.
But its downright twisted.
But lets take it from the top.
Rudys judges will be better than Hillary's
This means
1. Hillary has to serve only one term
2. During the 4 years of that term, the elderly libs on the court
A. Can't up and croak
B. Can't decide to retire so a new younger lib(the worst kind) can replace them insuring continuing ideological tilt.
C. None of our guys can retire or croak during that time period
3. Hillary during those 4 years won't come up with a federal entitlement to having babies offed.
4. She won't take any executive actions that make abortions easier to obtain.
5. She wont sign into law any bans on things like parental notification.
6. She wont slant the entire judiciary left.
Well if you think all thats going to happen just the way it has to happen for Hillary to be better than Rudy, I have some High Yield bonds to sell you.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
And get someone in who isn't more pro choice than Rudy.
I know you are certain that this will happen. Other people maybe not so much.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
1. Some chance is better than no chance. When does the Republican party become pro-life again? 2016? 2036? Whereas a failed Rudy bid stops this leftward lurch immediately.
2. I don't think all the pro-Roe judges will be recycled in 4 years. Nor are we likely to lose many conservatives in that time frame. But eight years strikes me as risky, and the wait could be even longer.
3. This is different from Rudy how? I don't see him stopping Congress, when he's on record as supporting public funding.
4. Yup, but this is small potatoes compared to Roe. And since Rudy is pro-abortion, you have to believe his promises to expect something different. How'd believing him work for his wives? Is he likely to be more faithful to pro-lifers?
5. I don't see this as possible, even if she were idealistic enough to try.
You say: "But a vote for Roe is a vote for Roe."
That's unsupported by the evidence. Hillary is an unabashed defender of Roe. Rudy is ambivilant on the issue, saying he doesn't really care if it's overturned or not.
However, if he appoints strict constructionists, he's effectively anti-roe even if he says he supports it. He's said he would appoint strict constructionists. You can say he's lying, but that's not what his career has indicated. His career has indicated the opposite, that he's very good at sticking to his word, remarkably so, actually, especially for an R in a very D city.
What's more, even if he were the biggest promise breaker on the planet, he'll probably be driven by self-preservation, and if he appoints a judge who supports Roe, he doesn't get re-elected, period, and unless he's stupid, and he's obviously not, he knows that.
Jindal/Palin '16
would be casting a vote for a candidate I cannot in good conscience support because a bunch of people were going around shrieking "Hillary!" at the tops of their voices. My vote is worth so little already, it wouldn't be right to cheapen it further.
As for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's twin sister, I'd rather see her nominated and used a a rallying point for pro-life conservatives in DC and across than nation, so we at least could make a fight of it, than a Sandra Day O'Connor who all the good little Republicans line up behind and goes on, at least on this particular issue, to rule the same way as the Ginsburg twin.
RandomGuy got it right, again; not "politically immature", just immature.
"My vote is worth so little already..." Tell that to the voters in Florida.
You see, kid, I have no respect for someone who loudly promotes your viewpoint, because it's nothing less than a threat to the rest of the party, and you're trying to rally others to your side.
And as far as making an unpalatable choice, I speak from experience. When you were about 3, I had to choose between a bald-faced crook (a Democrat, to boot) and a faux Republican Grand Kleegle of the KKK (LA-GOV 1991). Tell me about hard choices.
"Not voting" is for pu$$ies.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
If the party abandons a strong line on abortion and chooses a pro-choicer to be its nominee for POTUS. I will not belong to, or support, The Party of Death.
And for the record, this would not classify all Republicans as belonging to said party. I'm not going to toss out the baby with the bathwater, but I also can't vote for a pro-abort. I simply cannot.
So don't nominate one if you want my vote and support, and that of a lot of other so-cons, in 2008.
...not darts.
Nobody ever, ever, ever gets everything they want in a candidate.
And we'll never, ever, ever get a strict constructionist SCOTUS nominee out of Hillary.
And if you don't vote, she's who you're really voting for. And she'll be what you deserve.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
*Ringworld reference
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Just keep in mind that if Rudy is nominated and elected *without* your vote in the general, people are going to pay even less attention the next time you jump up and down about a candidate you happen not to like.
-exits
I toyed with the idea of re-writing the OP's post with Huck as the target. There are many (mostly moderate, so-called "fiscons") who oppose Huck, because they really don't like the influence that social conservatives have and have had within the Republican party. (There are others who oppose Huck for other reasons; I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the -- small? medium? large? -- faction in the Republican party that is actively anti-socon. From comments on Capt.Ed's blog (not the Capt himself): "[socons], don't let the door hit you on the way out")
But you, dear reader, can certainly imagine what that re-write would look like, so I won't bother. Instead, I'll pose this question (which was posed to me by a friend):
Many of the arguments against a Huckabee nomination mirror those against a Guiliani nomination: he'll split the party, faction X won't vote for him, sit home, vote third party, it's a guaranteed loss to PrezHill, etc.
So, all of you posting in this thread about how those for whom pro-life principles trump pulling the level for any random Tom, Dick, or Harry with a putative "R" after their name, aren't real Republicans and ought to sit out the primaries...
will you say the same to those moderate, non-(or anti-)socons that are making similar protestations about the "divisiveness" of a Huckabee nomination?
I refuse to support the guy? (Well, aside from his regularly confusing the government with a charity organization.) A good candidate doesn't have to be perfect for fisc-cons, soc-cons, and hawk-cons. But he does have to offer each category enough that people willingly vote for him.
So yes, I'm consistent in demanding a unity candidate. If you believe unity is important, shouldn't you do the same?
I'm not talking about you, whitfox -- this is your first post on this thread. I'm talking about, among others, Robert A. Hahn, who said above:
Why can't you be an honest independent and stand aside while the various parties choose their nominees?...It seems to me that trying to hijack a major party's fund-raising and GOTV machinery to support somebody you like when you have no intention of donating to, working for, or even voting for that Party's nominee unless it's your guy is remarkably self-centered.
Never mind that socons have formed a huge part of the foot-soldiery of the Republican party for at least 25 years -- which makes the last half of the quote above just plain false. Now, with a field of 8 or so candidates, laying down a marker that ONE of those 8 is simply unacceptable is "hijacking" the party.
I'm not actually calling for unity (at least not yet; the time for that is next October). I LIKE a good knock-down, drag-out political fight, where everybody gets so steamed they forget to mouth platitudes and instead say what they really think (c.f. the anti-socon quote I posted above). A little honesty is a good thing.
And that's what I'm calling for. The plain truth is we've got two factions playing chicken. The socons are afraid the ONLY party that has supported life issues in the past is about to become me-too Democrat-lite under Guiliani's leadership. The anti-socons are saying "support our guy, or be cast into the wilderness; oh, and we're laying down our marker too: no to Huck". And everybody else is singing the Rodney King Chorus: "can't we all just get along".
If it weren't so serious, it'd be funny. Fortunately for all of us, in this game of chicken, the "blink" cames way before the "crash": the primary will be over by the end of February, and everybody in both factions will have plenty of time between then and next October to take a good, long look at President Hillary. Somebody's going to eat some crow, eventually.
But until then: FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT.
Truth is revealed in the forge of conflict.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
that being OK with murdering babies is on a slighty different level than being OK with raising the tax rate.
However, at this point, it seems to be only the Rudy supporters who are demanding that, regardless of personal feelings or moral qualms, so-cons HAVE to vote for their candidate! So I really don't think you have a point.
Good to know.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I disagree with the premise that Rudy would nominate better judges than Hillary Clinton WITH REGARDS TO THE ABORTION ISSUE ITSELF.
On the whole, they probably would be better. But I think it will be a lot easier to stop, and far less damaging in the long run, for us to be able to fight a Hillary nominee than quietly accept a pro-choice Republican president's choice and regret it for the next 30 years. Remember, John Paul Stevens was appointed by Gerald Ford.
Also, if the party tells pro-lifers that they view us the same way the Democrats view blacks ("Well, you have to vote Republican"), we're not going to take it lieing down. THAT would hurt the pro-life movement, and the GOP, far more in the long run than a Hillary presidency would.
If abortion is your number 1 issue and your choice is Hillary or Rudy why wouldn't you vote for Rudy? Rudy is much more likely to appoint judges who would overturn Roe than Hillary is. I could see your point if Casey is the Democratic presidential nominee, but against Hillary [or Obama] I think all the Republican candidates, including Rudy, are much better for pro-life.
You don't HAVE to vote for Rudy, but if Rudy supports your issue(s) better than the Dem, I really don't see why you wouldn't vote for him.
If we go by judges, then it may not really matter which Republican is elected. The Senate will not confirm anyone who will not pledge (or has not pledged) to uphold Roe/Casey. The only hope would probably be a President who would be willing to leave empty any vacancies until he left or the Senate changed.
Not voting at all is a pretty dumb thing to do when you've got representatives and senators and possibly other offices. You needn't "sit out" to leave the spot for President blank.
Our enemies are bad enough -- but our FRIENDS will probably kill us!
========
Considering where the good doctor's head was, when practicing medicine, is it any wonder that the man has issues?
Icythus is correct that in America nobody is required to vote for anybody. This is a free country, and freedom includes the right to do all kinds of things, including a lot of stupid and/or immoral acts.
Where this post gets ridiculous is its self-righteous sanctimony, trying to portray narcissistic self-indulgence as an act in defense of moral principle.
The OP says "If Rudy gets the nomination, and runs against Hillary, I hope to God he wins. I believe he would make a much better C-in-C and Chief Executive than she would. But I cannot bring myself to cast my vote, which I hold to be sacred..."
Your vote is "sacred" in what way? What you believe is good for your country? How it affects what kind of Commander in Chief your soldiers will have? No, for you "sacred" is defined as what makes you feel good, otherwise you would vote for Giuliani in a Clinton-Giuliani contest. You "hope to God he wins", but feel punching a ballot to help attain that goal is too heavy a burden for you - hey just "hope to God," let him take care of it.
If somebody votes for Clinton over Giuliani because they honestly believes that America would be better off (or less bad off) with Clinton as President, I strongly disagree but I respect them for using their sacred vote to try to achieve what's best for their country. I have no respect for the view that voting is an onanistic act, the purpose of which is to make yourself feel good.
If some people choose to use their vote for self-gratification instead of what they believe is best for their country, OK, I support their right to choose self-gratification over their country. But let's not take seriously their sanctimonious claim, that their self-indulgence has any credible moral principle.
She said:
"You can't do that, that's just wrong."
That's what she meant. Pretty clear, really. She thinks it would be wrong of you to abstain or vote third party, given the consequences.
You are free to disagree, but stop whining about it, please.
Your comment:
I do not HAVE to vote for anybody. The last time I checked, this is America.
is a rather pathetic straw man. No-one suggested that you can be or should be forced to vote for anyone. You have every right to feel strongly about things. But so does your friend. And you do her a disservice - along with all those who have written along similar lines here - by misrepresenting what she said.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
I generally find myself sympathizing with about 80% of the So-Con agenda. I hate abortion, I hate embryonic stem-cell research and tend to think modern bio-technology reminds a whole lot more of
In other words, I'm a natural ideological ally of the SO-Can movement, however, their behavior this election cycle reminds me of what the Paulestinians would be like without "He Who Wants Us On the Gold Standard So That We Shoot Our Neighbors For Their Fillings."
I had absolutely had it up to here with the So-Cons when James Dobson started in on Fred Thompson. Rudy, I can see them opposing, but Fred Thompson. He was barely even a candidte when Mr. Spongebob_Packs_It_In was claiming he was an infidel.
If the So-Cons want to reclaim the GOP voters who listen to James Dobson and feel like puking in the nearest garbage can, they need to stop hyperbolizing and make their case.
It's not too darn hard to explain to people that a nation that aborts 40 million of its own is going to be short engineers and scientists. That's very simple logic.
It's not too hard to explain that the very same nation will have a massive demand for immigrant labor. The 15 million or so who are here illegally have only filled 3/8 of the demand. There's at least 25 million slots left to fill if you don't like Mexico or Guatamala, and that isn't counting the ones we abort this year.
If I were Osama Bin Ladin, and I needed more jihadists to hate America, I'd perform the following exercise in comparison. Hitler killed 5 million Jews, he got branded a mass-murderer. The US has aborted 40 million babies, who is a greater scourge of mankind, Hitler's Germany or The Post Modern United States? Sure, that's unfair and over the top, but so are most of the political adds I see every day on TV.
The point is, is that there is a profound and compelling case to make on why abortion should be curtailed or better yet, banned. It cuts across every issue that's a pain in our necks today. But that case isn't going to be made by whinning abour Ruudy or doubting that Fred Thompson legitimately qualifies as a Christian.
If the So-Cons have any legitimate product to sell, and for the reasons I posted above, I think they do, they need to stop demonizing their own partisans and get to work on making their case in a compelling and logical fashion.
“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men."
The former I have no particular problem with, and the latter I have little use for. So what's your point?
My point is that I get sick and tired of listening to a bunch of people who can't come up with a better candidate than Alan Keyes to represent their movement running down all the other candidates and claiming they're being forced to vote for choice X. If you'd personally eat a bug before voting Rudy, go catch a fly and dip it in chocolate. However, whinning that the GOP tried to force you to vote for him is puerile and disingenuous.
As the title of my previous post suggests, no one is forcing you to do anything. You have an entire tableau of fifty primaries and caucuses in which you and all of your like-minded allies can accuse Rudy of stealing the WTC Gold if that's what jumpstarts your heart in the morning.
If you are upset at how the pro-life movement is currently faring within the party, or dissappointed in who carries its standard int eh Primary Campaign, again, no one told you who to choose as a standard-bearer. Anytime you wanted to recruit decent talent and cohesively organize, you had the 1st Amendment Right of Free Association.
So in conclusion, whining that the GOP, the Tri-Lateral Commission and some other secret cabal is threatening you if you don't vote for Rudy is pathetic.
“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men."
Don't go lumping me in with the Paulites just because there is a line I can't cross. I never said a thing about a secret conspiracy, the Tri-Lateral Commission, or the Illuminati Templar Knights from the Center of the Earth.
What I have a problem with is the attitude that, because of my deeply-held beliefs, I am compelled to vote for whoever the GOP puts forward when all is said and done, even if said candidate is a complete violation of said beliefs.
Look, taking the base for granted is something Democrats do. Republicans and conservatives don't operate that way. At this stage, we should be looking around and saying, "Which candidate best represents our values and doesn't spit on a major portion of our coalition?" This insistance on unconditional loyalty BEFORE THE NOMINEE IS EVEN DECIDED is presumptuous and insulting.
and also you damage yourself far more by accussing the party of making you vote for Rudy than you would if you went about making a coherent case for what you believed.
Debating Rudy on the issues and exposing him would serve you far better than demonizing him. Personally, I favor Thompson.(who also has taken underserving crap off of leaders of the So-Con Movement) In other words, if people were not threatening to bolt the party if they are made to vote for Rudy, I wouldn't waste electrons carrying Rudy G's water for him.
In other words, it's the preemptive votemail operation of So-Cons that has bothered me. If you don't like Rudy, get behind a candidate that can spank him and send him home crying to his momma. Don't threaten the rest of the party with defection, just because you aren't succeeding in finding that guy.
“The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men."
I sat on this diary for a long time, especially after reading others along a similar vein. I finally thought it was time to air my view that Guiliani would be disasterous for the Party because of the way he places so-cons like me between a political rock and a moral hard place.
I've been looking hard for a candidate I can get behind. FDT had me when he was first making his motions for running, but I've had to take a second look since then. And Romney...(sigh) I like the guy, and would love to have an articulate president for a change, but every time he claims Ronald Reagan was pro-choice when he was Governor of California my blood boils a little. So I'd have to say I support either one over Guiliani, but can't yet give a full-throated endorsement to one in particular. Sorry, I'm just a careful shopper.
Your voting behavior is based on the idea that you vote for the person that you feel upholds your beliefs. I would argue that you vote for the person that you want to win, or you vote in order to cause the other candidates the lose. When you think of voting in those terms then voting for Giuliani becomes doable.
Have you heard of the expression "voting for the lesser of two evils?" Lots of Americans do it all the time.
How practical is it, in a nation of 300 million diverse people with diverse belief systems to only vote for a candidate that meets their high standards? So many people would sit out that the nation would choose an official that represented a slim minority of zealots, in this case, NARAL and the ACLU. Is that what you want?
Politics is not morality. Politics is politics. You're not going to go to hell because you voted for a sinner or for a pig. If you're disgusted, be disgusted with the political system that brought such candidates to the fore.
You really need to think about taking actions that will minimize abortion. A Giuliani vote, while unpalatable, advances your beliefs far more than sitting out. Hillary and Obama represent the infanticide holocaust, and clearly you've forgotten that.
"I can say - not as a patriotic bromide...that the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and...the only moral country in the history of the world. - Ayn Rand
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
Thank you for your honest and polite disagreement.
Two points:
1) I think the biggest problem with our political system is that we have divorced it from morality. I'm reminded both of Russell Kirk's assertion that all political problems are, at their heart, theological problems, and the words of the great Irish Republican anthem, A Nation Once Again:
It whisper'd too, that freedom's ark
And service high and holy,
Would be profaned by feelings dark
And passions vain or lowly;
For, Freedom comes from God's right hand,
And needs a Godly train;
And righteous men must make our land
A Nation once again!
2) I think the Known Fact™ that a Guiliani Administration would hurt the pro-life movement far worse than a Hillary Administration is fallacious. Support for legal abortion reached its high point in 1992, after twelve years of Reagan and Bush. Charles Krauthammer declared the abortion debate to be over. Support for abortion has decreased since then. And while everyone is rushing to remind me of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her hypothetical twin, do we remember Anthony Kennedy? David Souter? John Paul Stevens? A Republican president's appointees ca be just as bad as a Democrat's, and what will we do when they say to us, "Well, you knew he was pro-choice when you elected him, what did you expect?"
I'd rather not role the dice and pray for good judges from a morally weak man with no particular interest in the issue outside of how it hurts his chances of election. That's why I'm speaking up now, before we nominate him.
"I think the Known Fact™ that a Guiliani Administration would hurt the pro-life movement far worse than a Hillary Administration is fallacious."
That should read "far less".
If you cannot vote for Rudy then by all means vote for Hillary. She will certainly address most of your concerns - Supreme judges, taxes, big government, health care ...
There is never a reason to waste a vote, so join Dobson and elect Hillary.
... and I applaud your stand on this important moral issue, besides Hillery won't speed up the abortion mills here in the US, nor appoint judges who vow to uphold the right to more abortions, nor push legislation to build them in other countries too. She believes they should be safe legal and rare.
I like how you think. [snark]
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
I truly hesitated before responding to another “I won’t vote for Giuliani if he’s the nominee” diary. Nonetheless, the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.
A little perspective; I am vehemently against abortion since it is infant murder, period full stop. Now a few points;
- It’s your vote, no person can deny that. Vote for Mickey Mouse if you wish, that is certainly your right; but vote for Pete’s sake. It is always about choice, a choice of lesser evils and compromise. Ask yourself, who does not voting serve? Does it further your own goal if someone who unquestionably favors all forms of infant murder gets elected over someone who is, at best, parsed on the issue and that winning margin is provided by an absence of your vote?
- I am not going to defend Rudy’s position on abortion although he has said (amongst other things) it is a state’s rights issue. So that begs the question; what is the best we can hope for? There is no Congress in our future which will legislatively or constitutionally outlaw abortion. The nearest objective is judicially overturning Roe because it is bad law and turning this over to states presents a chance for significant, meaningful changes. With respect to judges, who will have a long term impact on this issue, I will have to trust Rudy above any other Democrat alternative. It is fairly clear that another RBG on SCOTUS would have a completely regressive effect on abortion. Furthermore, if social conservatives help elect Rudy (should he be the nominee) their clout in the nominating process would be improved and receive consideration. Anything less would be politically debilitating for both Rudy and the party in general.
- A party is a coalition, a collection of different views coalesced around common principals. If you believe there is a group that better represents your social mores, seek them out. I don’t say that to be trite or banal, only as gracious advice. Look at the Democrat Party legislative and issue related agenda. That comes nowhere near representing my views, especially on abortion.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
Yes, this is America and you are free to vote for whomever you want, and you are free not to vote.
If you don't want to vote for Giuliani, then don't. But don't play the martyr.
Let's hope you don't wind up in a position where you are given the option of not voting or compromising your values. I think you're right to support Romney or Thompson. Both of them have more Republican values than Giuliani.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
I never thought I'd read something on redstate that I agreed with so strongly that I'd have to register and pitch in my two cents.
The bit about our votes being sacred, I couldn't agree more. I can tell you this same thing is going on on the left. "Hillary is going to be the candidate and you will vote for her" and a lot of people are pretty disgusted by it.
In the godforsaken event of a Hillary vs Rudy race, I've been thinking about setting up a website where people can pledge to not place a vote for any presidential candidate and be automatically matched up with someone in their state from the opposite party who is pledging to do the same. This way we don't have to chose between selling out our party and selling out our values.
Good idea? Stupidest thing you've ever heard? Shut up and go away you commie rat?
It really is absurd. With the exception of the frontrunners, both parties have stronger fields this year than they have had in decades.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Each and every vote is significant. The one time I abandoned the GOP President was when the polls in my state were about 60-40 for him the weekend before the election. I expect a year from now (the Monday before V-day) my state will be about 55-45 anti-Hillary while the NE and Left Coast will be running 53-47 pro-Hillary. In the handful of states that will swing the election the voters actually have a choice that will make a difference.
For most of the country, skip the top of the ticket if you must, but for America's sake, don't stay home!
What Do You Mean, I HAVE(wasted the last 20 minutes scrolling through this post)To Vote For Rudy?
And you are absolutely right about the C in C. I am just remembering Kosovo where the clinton's strategy for fighting that little dustup hand a stealth fighter to our enemies, caused a pointless incident with the chinese, and I still ask the question "
Why were we taking out europes trash again ?"
So no you don't have to vote against Hillary.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777