Thursday, March 6, 2008
Republican Refuse: Whose Vote’s Wasted?
Given the current political quandary some Republican voters are presently finding themselves in, it is not surprising that with the demoralization within the party, such a quandary makes for a heated debate amongst two particular voting blocks. One block being those that will hold their noses and vote for the maverick John McCain and those that will place principle over the party and write another candidate in. The former block remains adamant that to write in another candidate amounts to “a wasted vote”. Such a bold statement couldn’t be further from the truth.
Even amongst those willing to hold their noses and vote for Senator McCain, the vast majority of them (if not all of them) will admit that they’re not overly enthused about doing so. And, why is that? It is for no other reason than that John McCain bears too much of a resemblance to those he’s running against on a whole flurry of issues from Global Warming initiatives, Guantanamo detainees, Waterboarding, Renewable Energy mandates and subsidies, Campaign Finance Reform, Illegal Immigration, the Bush Tax Cuts (though he’s come around in addressing we need to extend them) and any others I may have missed. And so you see, by voting McCain, you’re voting for, not only at present but, someone who is not likely to take a position or implement public policy that you’re likely to agree with. It essentially amounts to partaking in a short-term non-profit investment of sorts with no benefit in sight.
Moreover, I find the level of hypocrisy amongst the “hold their noses” voting block to be completely astounding. On the one hand, they can’t stomach another Clinton administration any more than they can stomach an Obama one. In the case of either, the sole reason comes down to policy and positions. The policies and positions of either Obama or Clinton lean solidly left. And yet, the “hold their noses” crowd is not willing to address the issue of policy and positions with respect to McCain. Were they to objectively apply the same equation to McCain, there is more than enough to give one cause for concern. And really, what is politics but the implementation of ideology; the pursuit of public policy? But I digress…
Writing in a candidate on the other hand is the furthest thing from a “wasted vote”. It is more of a long-term investment whereby you suffer a short-term loss for a future gain. Businesses do it all the time as do stock brokers. By sticking to principle and voting your conscience by writing a candidate in, you’re supporting something you agree with as simply opposed to supporting something you disagree with in an attempt to thwart something you disagree with even greater.
But, of course they often tell us “that’s like cutting off your nose to spite your face”. I have to say that’s more than a bit humorous coming from the same block of voters that are trying to save their arm by cutting off their hand.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Content: excellent
Color of text: poor
Happy now??? ;-)
Deliriously, thanks.
I suppose we all have our reasons for voting the way we do, I just cannot understand the attitude of not really liking a candidate but being overly eager to vote for that candidate, and wonder why I cannot do the same.
I liken it to donating to a charity for whose cause you don't really support.
Sorry, Soapie, but I have to disagree with you. I know all of John McCain's positions, and I know that he is no conservative. I'm a big Limbaugh fan, and he hates McCain. But I am still going to vote for him.
The gap between Hillary and Obama and John McCain are huge. If the Democrats win, we will lose the war, lose control of the Supreme Court for years, and see massive tax increases and entitlement spending. If the Republicans win, we will probably win the war, take control of the Supreme Court, and see merely large increases in entitlement spending. Neither choice is that great, but one is clearly better.
There's a lot of hyperbole there Daniel. A) Whatever Obama or Clinton may be telling their voters with respect to the war may be one thing but the reality that either one of them would actually remove all troops from Iraq and have the chaos be directly attributed to them is simply not going to happen and both of them have said as much. Had they got Bush to do it they would have been vindicated. However, they were unable to persuade him to do so. B) This notion about Supreme Court appointees being far more conservative with McCain than with Clinton or Obama is a farce. There simply isn't any evidence to suggest it. I've said it once and I'll say it again, McCain was one of the gang of 14 who tried to block Alito and other conservative judges. As for increases in spending....that's the one point of yours I won't argue. However, it's not a guarantee we wouldn't see massive spending increases with McCain at the helm. We've got enough RINOs in congress that would side with Democrats to override a veto. Moreover, McCain as some sort of spending hawk in Washington is a bit of a joke. Just take a shot at trying to calculate the regulatory taxes that John McCain has been the most vocal supporter of (Global Warming Cap and Trade with Lieberman for starters. Not to mention his Amnesty bill which, had it passed would have amounted to a $2.6 Trillion tax increase on Americans in retirements alone.)
So, you can make the case all you want for McCain. Just don't let the facts get in the way.
As the old adage goes: Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
I got fooled into believing Bush was a true conservative. I'm not going to get fooled a second time into being told McCain is one.
"Neither choice is that great, but one is clearly better."
In the short-term or the long-term?
In the short-term, McCain might seem a better fit. However, it sends a resounding message to the Republican establishment that will have them exploiting you from here to the end of your days. You've told them precisely what they want to hear "any Republican is better than a Democrat." It's no different than the Democratic party exploiting the African American vote for all these years. The implications of this short-term fix have major long-term effects.
I'll take a short-term loss if it raises my potential of a long-term gain.
I have to agree that the Democrats, should they win in November, would not automatically pull out of Iraq as promised, as a matter of fact they have admitted as much that non-combat forces would remain there. They'll have military advisors who they can blame if they go back on their promise to pull out, and their intelligence should still be doing everything to keep us safe.
Post a Comment