Go read what The Anchoress wrote. Seriously. Don't worry, this post won't go anywhere while you go read her words.
Regular readers here have probably noticed that I do not post a real lot about Republican candidates. In a way, that is my way of adhering to Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment. In other ways, it is pure pragmatism. An old dictum about not burning bridges. Because while I might not yet know who I will vote for, I surely know what I will, no, must, vote against.
I have brought this subject up before. I wrote about the courts – and the possible loss thereof – a couple of times. The Anchoress also sees that . I fear too many 'purists' do not. None of the Republican candidates meets every, single ideal I have. But then, neither did Ronald Reagan. But I voted for him twice and would have done so a third time had he been able to run again. Reagan was a pragmatist with no patience for the purists, as the quote The Anchoress has illustrates. He could be pragmatic about a lot of things – so long as his main goal of winning the Cold War and defending America was met.
I'd just point out one thing here. There is a recent example of absolute, purist politics that should make you think. Joe Lieberman is a die hard liberal with a solid history of supporting liberal policy. But the nutroots decided he was not pure on the Iraq war and supported Ned Lamont.
How'd that work out for them?
If you refuse to vote and sit out the election, you will not be entitled to a voice in shaping the direction you want your party, or the country to go in. You will, instead, lose your place at the table when it comes time to shape that direction. You may feel virtuous in your decision, but you will be mistaken. You will have proven that you are irrelevant. Is that what you really want?
I wonder if this might be related to a market mentality with Republican voters thinking of themselves as customers and the election as a purveyor. The thinking seems to be that, by sitting out the election, they can somehow influence federal elections in much the same way that a group of boycotting locals can influence a mom & pop business.
The problem being that, even when they do apply, market dynamics are almost never so simple and, in this case, they really don’t apply at all.
She’s something, isn’t she. Offering gentle (if exasperated) correction to some of the temper tantrum-prone. Of course, now I’m going to have to find my copy of In This House of Brede. Gotta be at least fifteen years since I’ve even thought of it. Perhaps the attic …
My hope is that the “I won’t vote” folks are just venting a little and will climb off of their horses. Frankly, the thought of Hillary appointing SCOTUS justices terrifies me in ways that nothing physical ever could. Complete and utter dread. I’d rather vote for Rasputin let that harpy anywhere near the White House. Unfortunately she seems to share some of his qualities. How many times should she have been politically dead? Seems like scads.
There were three I was perfectly willing to nominate, the first (the one the court issue people could really count on to nominate solid judges) just went down and the second won’t be far along. I have no problem voting for the one leading the primaries with the most votes at the moment (with this candidate I won’t have to spend any money to get him elected, he has enough to carry him through) but I do have a big problem on so many levels with the nightmare candidate the Republican establishment is gunning for.
It does not make sense in the primaries for the establishment to run a moderate/independent who has really done tremendous damage to the Republican Party over the last eight year(just image the type of judges he’ll nominate to the courts!), in order to get moderate/independent voters and then try to get the base.
Isn’t it supposed to be the other way around, first the base then the center?
If both candidates in the general election are basically the same on just about everything(Hillary voted for the war too and will probably continue the fight as well) does the Republican establishment really think that independent/moderates will pull the one with an R behind his name?
Isn’t this approach of running the same candidate as the oppostion bascially turning the election over to a Democrat?
That said, I spent three days getting out the vote for my candidate only to discover that so many voters(other than the little lambs who are hypnotised by the serpent’s tongue) had no idea what any of candidates were about, they were relying on the media and the polls to affirm their action.
At the moment there should be no reason why a moderate/independent, whose record is quite liberal, is leading the Republican nomination.
One other point, hopefully this election process will help those in religious institution come to understand on so many levels just how divided is the Church.
For example, it simply makes no sense for a minister of a Methodist Church to endorse a politician who voted to continue the practice of partical-birth abortion.
Nor does it make any sense to lie in the name of Christ or to use Christ as a means to demogogue or to say in the name of Christ it’s okay to break laws because we’re all God’s children.
Perhaps the Anchoress (whom I understand is deeply faithful) can address these issues in the Church which are causing so much division throughout the country.
It’s very difficult to fight for law and order when religious people are saying don’t bother with law and order because we are all God’s children nor can religious people demand to end a practice they consider a sin when their very own minsters, and preachers are endorsing the very politicians who support the particular sin; ministers, preachers, priests should not be saying on the one hand abortion is a sin then with the other hand pull the lever for those politicians who support abortion.
The thing is, the Republican candidates will at least pay lip service to the values of conservatives. They will be, at least nominally, accountable to the party and its platform.
The folks who won’t vote because they cant vote for their favorite would be enabling a potential landslide for the Democrats, and claims of a “mandate”, even if the turnout is historically low. Then the bad things start happening.
Now that Fred is out (grumble, grumble) I don’t have any chance of voting for the guy I wanted to, but by not voting I would in effect be handing the White House to Hillary and Bill or Obama, with a note saying “Hey, beer’s in the fridge and pizza’s on its way. Have a big ol’ party, just try not to get too much dirt on my values. P.S. Take things away from me to further your socialist agenda, and stack the Court for the foreseeable future. Back in four to eight years.”
If you don’t vote, you can’t kvetch, because you didn’t even try.
I have to agree with The Anchoress on all counts – there has never been and will never be a perfect candidate. I often quote my favorite author, Robert Heinlein, and will do so again, a couple of times here. First, Heinlein suggested that no one who WANTS the office of president should ever be considered for it. His premise was that anyone who actually wants the power would always put their own needs above those of the people they are supposed to serve. His suggestion was that the populace seek out the most qualified person in the nation who DOES NOT WANT the job and DRAFT them for the job for four to six years. At least that way you know the person is competent and is not an egocentric megalomaniac (Hillary). Unfortunately, while that might work for a very small nation where everyone might be, at least, aquainted with everyone else, it isn’t practical for a country the size of the U.S.
I have voted in every presidential election since 1976. In virtually every election the candidate I voted for (yes, including Reagan) was the candidate that I felt was the LESSER OF TWO EVILS. There has never been a candidate I could support 100% – there were always policies on which we disagreed. It didn’t stop me from voting for one simple reason, and here is my second HeinLein quote, “Always vote. There may not be anyone you want to vote for but there is sure to be someone you want to vote AGAINST.” This is a sentiment Gaius echoed in his first paragraph above (Gaius being another good Heinlein fan).
I know who I am going to vote for in the Florida primary next week. However, if my candidate doesn’t get the eventual nomination I will vote for whichever current Republican candidate does get the nod for one simple reason – virtually every single Republican running is a better choice than Hillary of Barrie. I will be voting AGAINST the Democratic candidate – for the lesser of two evils. I will do so for reasons of national security and yes, Uncle Pinky’s concern about the SCOTUS IS a national security concern – look at the terrorism and war related cases they are already being asked to consider and think of those they will be asked to consider in the future.
Checked the Anchoress’ post. Just reaffirms why I never visit her site.
God help us all, the next President of the United States will be a liberal. Given that, there’s no reason to fret about SCOTUS Justices and war policies; just take what the Democrats give and be happy (?!) with what you get.
“My party, right or wrong” is traditionally a liberal Democrat position. It might be best rendered in practice through a vote for the Democrat party candidate. Doesn’t matter, though; there’ll be enough non-liberals staying home on election day to make the upcoming election the landslide of the century for the Democrat party.
I have not decided what to do, and may not until Election Day. Although the Anchoress’ words were interesting, I am not inclined to simply jump to the most electable candidate… I’m not going allow populism to drive my decision.
I have to agree that when the time comes in November, I will need to vote for someone, which will likely be the Republican candidate. I think everyone has a right to show up at the polls and skip the part of the ballot reserved for the Presidential race, but I also agree that “none of the above” is not a position that one can legitimately belly-ache from.
For many of us, the issue is not always “I disagree with one point or another”, in some cases it is a fundamental concern about the principles that drive the candidate’s decision-making process. What does one do when the candidate seems almost as liberal as the Democratic alternative?
I do think that we need to continue pushing for the candidate with the best fundamentals as a starting point, and continue the dialogue. At the same time, we need to be having this dialogue with our Congressional candidates. A conservatively moderate President will do us not much good filling openings in SCOTUS if he has to fight a liberal Senate to get the nominations approved. A moderate to liberal Senate will roll over to a Democrat. And I cannot say this enough, Congress makes the laws and spends the money, not the President. We must make sure all of the politicians hear our voices.
Lastly, those of us that are involved with the grassroots of the party need to continue making our case for conservative values, participating as much as we can within the party events, on the blogs, and anywhere else people will listen. There are too many (as mentioned elsewhere) who are allowing the media and party moderates to influence their thinking. We need to communicate a strategic vision and demonstrate the long-term implications of the moderate and liberal solutions that continue to be placed on the table unaccosted. As a party, we are starting to experience some of the same debilitating fragmentation that the Democrats experienced a few years ago. If we can’t articulate a substantive case in the first place, we don’t deserve to see our values hold sway.