Friday, February 8, 2008

Neighbors

To Whom It May Concern,



So, you say that you won't be voting for your party's nominee come this November. You know, I understand your wanting to punish Sen. McCain for the things he's done that you don't like. Lord knows, he's done a few doozies.



What I don't understand is why you want to deliberately punish the rest of the people who, through no more fault than yours, find themselves with a choice between Senators McCain and either Hillary or Obama. Just like you, during the primaries, these people voted for candidates other than McCain because they wanted the best candidate they could get. That makes them your neighbors, whether you realize it or not. They may be a minority in your party, but their your party neighbors.



And now they'll be voting for McCain because he is the best candidate they can get; the best candidate of their party that actually has a chance to win. But you're angry with McCain, with some of the things he's done. So you won't help your neighbors.



Well, I'm sorry to hear that. I'm sorry because I believe that neighbors stick together; they help one another. Sure, it's your vote. But it's a selfish attitude, and one that can, and likely will, spill over into other parts of your life. It's more than just taking your ball and going home. It's pissing in the soup that others want to eat.



However, if that's what you do, I may not like it but I'll tolerate it. I don't like that kind of behavior, but I guess it's the best I can get from you at the moment. I hope you eventually learn to become more neighborly. I believe in helping my neighbors, even if it involves some of my own pain. I hope someday you'll believe in that, too.

49 comments:

  1. You entirely miss my point, qwer. I AM helping my neighbors by not voting for someone I feel is unqualified to be president. The only way to get qualified candidates is to refuse to vote for unqualified ones. That's just a fact of life. If it takes some "tough love" to get the Republican Party (or whatever replaces it if it throws the conservative base by the wayside), I won't like it but I'll do it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh, and how is it punishing my neighbors to vote my conscience? You make it sound as though all our votes should be communally agreed on. No, the vote belongs to the individual, to cast as he thinks best. If my neighbors dislike how I vote (if they even know how I vote), it's just none of their affair. Sorry, I don't owe them unconditional support. But I do owe myself to be true to my own values and beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  3. All,
    I remember when Gerge H.W.Bush was running against Bill Clinton. I was a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and the N.R.A. I was incensed at Bush Sr. because he had signed the first "assault weapons" ban into law. Then, when he and the B.A.T.F. began to take a lot of heat from the N.R.A, he rather ostentatiously and publicly resigned from and renounced that organization. For the first time, the N.R.A. refused to support any candidate for POTUS. I could not support George Ist anymore either, so I actively campaigned for Ross Perot. I employed all the usual rationalizations; My state was too blue for my vote to matter. I could not compromise my #1 core principal. No one will vote for that Clinton fella anyway. I'll be sending my party a message etc...
    Well, we all know what happened. Clinton won. We had 8 years of the most corrupt and embaressing administration ever. We are still dealing with that horrible mistake today. Please dont let it happen again. I still feel a little personally responsible for that debacle even though I know that statistically I am insignificant.
    Remember what the man said. "United we stand. Divided we fall!" True then. True now. True in the future.
    Best to all~
    Svin

    ReplyDelete
  4. Then find me someone to vote FOR, svin. I can't vote for McCain. I don't trust him, and I don't believe what he says when he says he's now suddenly become conservative. I've voted Republican my whole voting life, but I'll leave the presidential race blank on my ballot this time if I have to. I'll vote for conservatives for all the other open offices, but unless there's a conservative I can trust running for President I'll pass on that contest.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "The only way to get qualified candidates is to refuse to vote for unqualified ones. That's just a fact of life."

    You appear to be treating the people who were so "misguided" (in your view) in nominating an "unqualified" candidate as the enemy, to be ostracized until they come around to your way of thinking. Or perhaps you view them as children; and your avowal against voting is akin to giving them a "time out", until they understand the error of their ways.

    On the contrary, I believe that refusing to vote for candidates you do not approve of (in your words "unqualified") means that you will get more of the same. And, I believe that by consistently voting for the best of the lot, you consistently apply pressure toward your preferred qualifications.

    For your Squeaky-Wheel hypothesis to work, the people you hope to influence have to see your vote as required -- if the wheel binds, the cart stops moving; therefore, better grease the squeak. However, those people could, instead, just as easily conclude that they need to bring into the party more liberal-leaning members to offset the problem created by your non-voting.

    So, let's try a simple sanity check to see how well your hypothesis works. The GOP lost both houses of Congress in 2006 because a small fraction of their base stayed home in disgust rather than vote for their party's candidates. I know some of these purists personally. Some are my friends, still. Now, 1.5 years later, rather than the majority of the GOP catering to these purist stay-at-homes as your Squeaky-Wheel hypothesis suggests, that majority has nominated a less-than-fully-conservative candidate for president. The party's center of gravity has moved a bit more toward the middle.

    I believe that the reason for this move toward the middle is better characterized by the Whiner hypothesis. The majority of the party doesn't want to have to count on all-or-nothing purists who whine and throw a fit about this or that impurity in the candidate.

    Moreover, given that this is how you choose to treat the majority's candidate, you seem to be requesting that they do the same to your candidate should the tables ever be reversed. Somehow, I don't believe that you wish the supporters of McCain to stay at home if your ideal candidate happens to become the party nominee in 2012. But if not, then why do you treat them this way in 2008? Have you never understood Matthew 7:12?

    Meanwhile, however, there is a real political enemy out there who wants to treat all Americans as children by removing our liberties one at a time, like boiling a frog -- for our own good. Not to mention a real military enemy out there who wants us all enslaved or dead.

    So, vote your conscience if that's what you feel you must do; but in this case it will not help your neighbors.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh, and Svin -- now I know who to blame for Slick Willy. I'm keeping my eye on you, fella.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Qwer,
    Yeah! That was 16 years ago and my 77 year old father still blames me for throwing the election.
    Svin

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dougloss,
    I respect your point of view and I agree that a vote is most certainly an individual right. I am no fan of compromise (what is the compromise between food and poison?) but it is in the very nature of government "By the People". We agree to give up some of our individual sovereignty in exchange for a well ordered society. The alternative is anarchy. I don't like it, but it is the best system we have. Because "We The People" are in effect the government, voting becomes a duty and not an option(IMHO). I feel that we should discharge this duty responsibly. I do not believe that choosing the none of the above option is responsible. Whether for fair or for ill we have developed a two party system. Our voice becomes our parties voice and vice-versa. If you really want to send a message, don't go for half-measures. Vote for the opposition. This will have twice the intended effect of not voting at all and thus will advance your ultimate goal all the more effectively, if your reasoning is correct.
    I swore four years ago that I would never, ever, vote for McCain even if he was running against Hillary. Today, sadly, I am forced to retract that oath and vote the republican ticket for the good of the country. That is who I am voting FOR.
    Best~Svin

    ReplyDelete
  9. I guess it boils down to: Do you believe that the Party you are affiliated with is more like a Horse, or more like a Cart?

    If it is like a Horse, then you can use positive and negative reinforcement to modify its behavior.

    If, on the other hand, it is like a Cart, then its course can only be changed by continued effort, pushing it in the right direction. If you don't help push, then its direction will be determined by all the other people who ARE pushing.

    I believe it is like a Cart, and not like a Horse. I believe that if you don't push, it will veer off because previously you were counterbalancing someone who was pushing the other way.

    Further, I believe that we haven't done a very good job of pushing in the past. We have kind of walked along beside the Cart because we expected it to go the way we wanted, but others got in there and started pushing it in a direction we don't like. Now some of us are trying to punish the party, and I don't think it can feel it.

    Stil further, I believe that if we allow the OTHER side's Cart to be in the lead, we won't be able to help steer, until we push our Cart faster to catch up, AND go in the right direction. Instead of helping defeat McCain, I think we should go ahead and help him win, but then GET OUT AND PUSH!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm sorry, but all of your arguments amount to "take one for the team." I've done that for years, voting for Republicans I wasn't at all happy with just because they aren't Democrats. I notice that none of you have attempted to convince me that McCain is actually someone worth voting for, only that he's the best of a bad lot. Tell me this: if you never vote for your principles and conscience and always compromise them in the furtherance of people you don't agree with, just how strongly do you actually hold those principles? Call me selfish if you want, I will not help John McCain reach the Whitehouse. If someone else comes up to oppose the Democrats who doesn't make me cringe I'll support him in a heartbeat. But McCain has a long way to go in my eyes to recreate himself as a believable, conservative politician.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ah, see, the crux of my point is that voting is to be considered the carrot. Going back to the horse and cart analogy, I'm saying that the cart will ignore whether you try to give it a carrot or not. We're past the point of pushing, regarding this particular mile marker. All we can do is help decide which cart is leading the train.

    Pushing, in my analogy, equates to talking to people and getting them to contact the people who are driving the cart, and telling them which way we want to go.. It is getting involved in the groups that help decide who will BE driving the cart (Party officials), to convince them to pick people who will be willing to drive the way we want to.

    I'm saying that if we don't push in between elections, then we shouldn't be surprised when the cart doesn't go the way we want it to go, and that trying to cause the direction to change only at election time is a hopeless gesture.

    So yes, we're saying "take one for the team", right now, but then work at changing the team: It's because we haven't been pushing that we have the choice we have right now.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Wayne, I'm steeling your Horse analogy: As all should know by now, I'm no fan of McCain. I even thought about not voting so that Hillary could win, and we have 4 years of crap, so my kind of candidate would be a shoe-in for 2012. This is also nick-named the "Reagan Effect" after the Carter years. The problem with this theory is that it's like betting all your money on the slow horse. The payoff is well worth the wait, but you would still be betting on the slow horse with very high risk. And there is absolutely no guarantee that we know who will be running in 2012. Nine months ago, I thought for sure that it would be Hillary vs. Newt in November. But I was way off. Heck, Newt didn’t even run. Six months ago, I thought it would be Hillary vs. Rudy. Now it could be Barrack vs. McCain? Don’t wage any bets on 2012. As much as I don’t like it, Qwer makes a very good point here.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Steal away, Chase. I started off over at Rachel's, with a Dog analogy, but I like this one better.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dougloss, this is a bit long for which I apologize. I wish I could have made it shorter. I hope you'll bear with me. I feel you have made an excellent point, which I quote below, but first I would like to briefly address two other issues.

    "I notice that none of you have attempted to convince me that McCain is actually someone worth voting for, only that he's the best of a bad lot."

    You talk as if these must always be two completely different things. (Perhaps you meant something different here?) As you already know, if you have two ugly choices and one is the less ugly because it will cause less harm to your neighbors, then (and especially then) that lesser choice has a worth. So, it isn't that that lesser choice isn't worth voting for -- it is your personal dislike of that lesser choice.

    I'm also sure you're aware that McCain is very likely to do less harm to both our country and to the people who voted for your preferred candidate than either of Hillary or Obama.

    The above is not meant to convince you to vote for McCain. But it is clear to me that a vote for McCain has some "worth" even if it may not be quite what you meant to say.

    "all of your arguments amount to 'take one for the team.'"

    I'm not sure who might have been arguing for this sentiment, but I have not, as I will explain below.

    "if you never vote for your principles and conscience and always compromise them in the furtherance of people you don't agree with, just how strongly do you actually hold those principles?"

    This is an excellent point. So, let me try to make it more clear for you why I always vote for my principles and conscience. And why I, in particular, will still be following my principles and conscience when I cast my vote for someone with whom I disagree. In fact, this concept of being "principled" is at the crux of the matter -- something which I believe has been confused and thereby sullied and watered down to where people can claim to being "principled" for doing literally anything they wish.

    People value different things differently, and that is their prerogative; part and parcel of liberty. By the same token, regardless of what they value, their liberty doesn't extend to curbing the liberty of their fellow man. That is, liberty is not for an exclusive elite, but for all.

    However, if one's view is that one owes nothing to one's fellow man, you have anarchy if you keep your liberty; and you have diktat if you fail to keep it. And you will almost certainly fail to keep it. If you believe that you can create trustless contracts (trustless because everyone else knows that you will do nothing but what is specified in the contract -- as interpreted by you) with everyone you come in contact with, then you will find yourself ostracized.

    The reason for this is because your fellow man has already found a better way to live. And this better way is more than to "owe nothing" and deal "by contract" only; it is called the Golden Rule.

    Please bear with me here, because there is more to this than typically meets the eye. The Golden Rule is the foundation of liberty, although it is not usually spoken of this way. That's because the Rule is usually given in only one way even though it includes the dual of that way.

    The primary way it is stated occurs in many religions. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I typically refer to Bible verses to emphasize the vast history of the Rule. For example: Matthew 7:12 "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them". Matthew 22:39 & Leviticus 19:18 "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself".

    However, the dual way of stating the Rule is also part of it. "Do not unto others that which you would not have them do unto you." Many people do not think of this second form when they think of the Golden Rule. That is sad because this is the description of liberty for all.

    The dualities of the Golden Rule are: Don't impose on your neighbor beyond courtesy, and help your neighbor when in need. It is this dual principle that allows men to trust one another, that allows them to form a community in liberty.

    Sure, there are lots of principles which I hold dear, but as the Golden Rule is the foundation of liberty; it is the most important principle to me.

    The concept of a "team" doesn't enter into it, for me. Just the Golden Rule. I don't vote for someone with whom I disagree because I believe that I'm "taking one for the team". That's a nice altruistic behavior, but it's not what I intend to do. Rather, within a group of people, I support the group for a majority candidate whom they chose (but whom I don't like) because of the Golden Rule -- if the tables were turned, I would want them to support my majority candidate even if they didn't like it.

    In fact, it is precisely this communal group behavior of mutual support, even when there are individual disagreements, that is the reason why the group is recognized as a party. A communal group isn't just a snapshot of people coincidentally next to each other in a crosswalk who, a moment later, have left one another going in different directions.

    This is also precisely why such a group has any power at all. If subgroups were to splinter off at the drop of a hat, with no thought of the Golden Rule, then we would have your typical parliamentary result of a half dozen minority parties and coalitions that change every fortnight like the weather.

    The key reason we don't have such a result is that a fixed election cycle selects for larger more stable groups, and this places a higher value on behavioral reciprocity. This is something that Ronald Reagan understood; and it is why he supported GOP candidates that were markedly to the left of McCain when his own candidate (including himself) didn't get the support of the majority.

    To not do so is to bring down upon oneself, and one's group, the dark side of the Golden Rule -- the behavior known as Tit for Tat. This is the Anti-Golden Rule: "Do unto others as they have just done unto you".

    So, here you are. The majority of your party has chosen, for whatever bizarre reasons, the one candidate you find thoroughly distasteful. So, because of your principles, you won't support him. Even though, the majority played by the communal support rules and fully expected to support your favorite candidate should you have gotten lucky. Even though you've actually seen (I assume you're old enough to have seen it) Reagan support Nixon and Ford -- two GOP presidents who each, individually, brought back FDR's Marxist Wage and Price controls to the detriment of the country.

    And here I am. I clearly do not support many of the things McCain represents; nor do I want several of the things that might come to pass if McCain is elected. By principle, I am in favor of the Rule of Law (it's one of my principles) and hence ill-disposed to let cheaters get away with cheating by cutting in front of those who've been waiting in line -- against amnesty whether sponsored by McCain or pushed by Bush.

    Similarly, by principle, I am in favor of truthfulness and hence ill-disposed toward McCain's twisting of the truth for his own benefit during this campaign, however common and "accepted" it is by the pols. And by principle, I am in favor of freedom of speech, and especially of political speech (as were the Founders), and hence ill-disposed to McCain's sponsoring of, Bush's signing, and SCOTUS's rubber stamping of the BCRA.

    However, I do not want to be isolated in a tiny powerless political subgroup and left to the mercies of a judiciary to protect my minority rights or interests. (All the more so in these days of an Orwellian redefinition of the word "minority".) Hence, I joined one of the two political parties with power.

    I chose the one which has the better alignment with my own principles. I say "better" alignment. However, I am under no illusions -- the GOP is the lesser of two evils. I note in particular Nixon's and Ford's Marxists economic policies, and Sr. Bush's lie about "no new taxes", and Jr. Bush's support of amnesty and signing the BCRA. The GOP still has an elitist streak, and its national leaders in Congress still take and spend far too much of my earnings on things that I believe hurt the country to suit me. Nonetheless, I chose the lesser of two evils -- the GOP party.

    "I've done that for years, voting for Republicans I wasn't at all happy with just because they aren't Democrats."

    And that's part of what keeps your party from splintering into pieces -- the Golden Rule. They vote for your nominee even though it's not their preferred choice, and they expect you will do the same.

    I can understand if you are fed up with politics, at the moment. It can be a disheartening thing and can affect one's mood.

    However, I feel required by my principles to either quit my party or vote for it's nominee. If I stay in the party, I am bound by my principles; and the principle with highest priority is how I believe Mankind rises about the animals -- the Golden Rule. So, I will support my party's nominee for the majority of my party because that is what I would have them do (and that is what they have pledged to do -- the point of the national nominating convention) for me were it to be me in the majority. And I do not feel it is appropriate to quit my party at this juncture because I signed up for the rules of the contest at the beginning fully knowing ahead of time that it might come down to this situation (or, from my viewpoint, worse).

    What you do is up to you -- you may have different principles than I do. But I am not "taking one for the team". I am standing by my principles, not compromising them at all.

    ReplyDelete
  15. And I'm standing by my principles. You mention "splintering at the drop of a hat." If that's the case, this hat has been dropping for many years now. This is not a spur of the moment decision for me or many of the conservatives who think as I do. We have been doing just as you still intend to do, supporting party candidates we disagree fundamentally with, for the sake of party unity. But the "behavioral reciprocity" you speak of doesn't really exist. Here in PA, the entire party machinery turned out to defeat a primary challenge to Arlen Specter in his last election. Tell me that primaries aren't really where the party's members are supposed to select the candidate they wish to present in the general election, but are in fact where those members are supposed to just vote as they're told by the elite.

    I'm sorry, but this decision wasn't taken lightly and has been a long time in coming. To paraphrase Reagan, I didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me. I will support candidates I don't personally agree with 100%, but McCain is so far beyond the pale that he's a deal-breaker. I swore I would never vote for him a long time ago. I see no reason now to say, "just kidding!"

    ReplyDelete
  16. Tell me that primaries aren't really where the party's members are supposed to select the candidate they wish to present in the general election, but are in fact where those members are supposed to just vote as they're told by the elite.

    Then help take over the party, don't just sit back and expect them to go the way you want just because you don't choose to vote for their candidate.

    ReplyDelete
  17. And when have I given the impression I'm not trying to do that, Wayne? It's a long. slow slog, but worth making. Don't think I'm just an old fart who can't do anything but complain. But situational principles don't work for me. I'm a PA Dutchman; easy enough to get along with, but when we hit "the wall" you might as well kill us, you won't change our minds. McCain's "the wall" for me.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dougloss,
    When I was growing up in Reading Pa, we had a saying that went something like "You can always tell a Dutchman, but you can't tell 'em much." I know what you mean about the "wall". I am the same way.
    When the Hildabeast gets elected, you owe the rest of us a beer. Or a Birch Beer. Whichever. And maybe some shoo-fly pie to go with it. And some ring-bologna. Dang, the food is "gut" up there.
    Svin

    ReplyDelete
  19. svin,

    Dude! Don't feel like the Lone Ranger. I voted for Perot to "send a message" to the two parties as well. Fat lot of good it did.

    As for the current mess, until such time as we get a "None of the above" on the ballot which, in the event that "None" gets a majority, makes both (or hopefully all) parties start over with a maximum of 6 weeks to select a new candidate (none of the previous candidates need apply), campaign and be voted on (repeat as necessary) I don't see any way to break the cycle. Fred Thompson was my guy. I could write him in next November. So I should repeat my Perot vote? Insanity is defined as repeating an act expecting a different outcome.

    I trust McCane about as far as I can throw him. I trust the Hildabeast and Obama even less. But I have no choice in this as I think McCane will do less damage to the country.

    ReplyDelete
  20. DougLoss, sorry for the delay -- just finished help train another bunch of firearms beginners.

    "But the 'behavioral reciprocity' you speak of doesn't really exist. Here in PA, the entire party machinery turned out to defeat a primary challenge to Arlen Specter in his last election. Tell me that primaries aren't really where the party's members are supposed to select the candidate they wish to present in the general election, but are in fact where those members are supposed to just vote as they're told by the elite."

    Firstly, I notice that you claim 'behavioral reciprocity' doesn't really exist. I'm not sure why you make this claim without at least provided a little bit of evidence to support it. (I don't see how what followed is evidence.)

    Secondly, I don't understand why you dislike a bunch of people in your party who are busy supporting their candidate. Presumably, this is what you did with your own candidate. Do you dislike them because you don't like their candidate? Certainly, I don't like Specter's political views but that is neither here nor there. I would imagine that Specter's supporters also didn't like your candidate; hence, they supported Specter. Do you begrudge them their liberty to choose and support whom they wish?

    You want me to tell you... I thought you knew, but okay; the way a party works is that you're supposed to help steer the party in the primary, and then vote for the party's nominee in the general election. Because the party is composed of a lot of people, many of whom don't share your personal viewpoint on things, you don't always get any particular things you want.

    Sounds like you helped steer your party in the primary but didn't like the result. And it also sounds like you'd rather blame your party for being ignorant and stupid (sort of like the way the MSM is always portraying Republican rank and file as ignorant and stupid) rather than help more effectively nominate your own candidate -- or switch to a party that is more effective at electing the kind of candidate you like.

    Finally, to make the point once more, the reason your party leaders (your so-called "elite") are telling you to vote for the majority's nominee is because that's how a party works. They are merely reminding you of this. (If you think that they rigged the election by changing vote totals rather than merely campaigning well, please let me know -- it doesn't look like you're trying to claim this.)

    And yes, I know that the local leaders of the party, because they have been working inside the party infrastructure, have more influence on steering the primary. But that's how it should be -- they are taking more of their own time and trouble to support their candidate. If you want to have that kind of influence, you can work to form your own political action committee. Personally, I value my own time differently, so I've traded off greater involvement for a combination of 1) more time to work on personal things (like my family) and of 2) more risk that the eventual nominee will be less to my liking.

    "To paraphrase Reagan, I didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me."

    But Reagan said this to explain why he left one party and joined a party that was more effective at electing the kind of candidate he liked. You haven't done that. I'm sorry, but you appear to be just complaining that the party weather isn't to your liking -- and hasn't been for awhile. And you're willing to make certain the election goes to someone who'll collect everyone else's raincoat in addition to yours. And, once again, I point out that you knew the party rules going in, but because the nomination results didn't go your way you want to bail out now.

    If you think that you can go out and form a new national conservative party, feel free. (Seriously, I might join it, though I doubt that it'd have enough power to tempt me.) I think that that move would be principled. (Or *actually* do what Reagan did, and switch to another party -- although the only other party that has any power are the Democrats.) Or vote with your feet and move to a state where your local party tends to nominate people more to your liking.

    Just don't sit in your current party and act like the party rules are unfair. The rules aren't unfair. You (and I) are just not getting the results we want as often as we want them. You're letting your emotions get the better of you.

    And you're current plan is to repeat 2006 by helping to piss in your neighbors' soup because you don't like that soup anyway. That's what emotional people do -- they ignore others around them.

    I swore I would never vote for him a long time ago. I see no reason now to say, "just kidding!"

    Let me remind you, once again, that Reagan abided by the party's rules when things didn't go his way for the nominee. And also that McCain is less liberal than either Nixon or Ford was. So, bringing up Reagan doesn't reflect well on your current "principles". For that matter, McCain campaigned for his party's nominee, Bush, after he lost the 2000 primary; and campaigned for Bush in 2004 as well. So you don't appear, here, even as principled as McCain with respect to your party.

    As for "just kidding", I don't think that you're in the state of mind to recognize that sometimes what a person states is simply a mistake rather than an inviolable "principled" position.

    ReplyDelete
  21. And when have I given the impression I'm not trying to do that, Wayne?

    Ok, I realize that the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence, but all I've seen by anyone who is taking your position on this issue is that they've been handed a succession of bad nominees to vote for, and McCain is the last straw. I haven't seen anyone say that they have actually gotten involved in the process at the organizational level, and just not had enough support to make a difference. I haven't seen one indication that any positive effort has been made. Everything I have read that anyone has done has been negative, and not much of that. I've seen people write that they have refused to donate money in fundraising drives, and that they aren't going to vote for someone so distasteful as McCain.

    If you've gone with the positive effort route, then I apologize, but if not, all I can say is that I doubt it has had much effect, even in the form of large numbers of people.

    ReplyDelete
  22. qwer, I'll respond to your last post point by point. But I'm beginning to resent your tone in responding to me. Disagree with me if you must, but don't insinuate motives to me that I don't hold.

    In the primary in PA that I talk about, the party elite en masse (not just the PA party, but President Bush as well) campaigned vigorously for Arlen Specter against Pat Toomey, his conservative rival. In a general election this would be just fine and both expected and required. But in a primary the voters should be left to decide their party's candidates for the various open races without such heavy-handed "guidance" from the party hierarchy. You speak of me "begrudging them [Specter's supporters] their liberty to choose and support whom they wish." You don't get it. I was (and am) upset that the entire hierarchy of the state party supported (including financially, using party funds) the candidacy of one Republican against another in the primary election, and actively worked to ensure that the challenger wasn't perceived as a viable candidate. I don't care if individual party big-wigs announce their support for a candidate in the primary, but to use party funds to support one candidate over the other in the primary is over the line.

    And as for "just kidding," I certainly recognize what I'm saying. If you think "I won't ever vote for McCain!" was a mistaken position to take feel free to admit you made a mistake saying it (assuming you did). I think it was and is the correct position to take. Oh, and please don't tell me again that I owe my vote to the community, that I should vote in such a way as I think they'd like. That is a deeply insulting thing to say. My vote is mine, no one else's. Attempt to convince me that McCain deserves my vote. But don't tell me I have to vote for him "for the children" (or some other societal grouping).

    ReplyDelete
  23. Doug- I don't know if your conversation is private or not, and if it is, please disregard my comment. As a recovering politician, I am constantly aware of MOST voters' lack of knowledge re: the abject difference between POWER, and INFLUENCE. I sense that you get it, and the primary, general election differences are a good exemple of how it works. I voted Perot in 92. At the time I was a registered Dem. (forgive me) but could not stomach BJ. Did Perot "Lose"? NO. His 20% scooted BJ to the right a good bit, and put the fear of God into him about '96. Shooting the bullet is better than biting it.

    ReplyDelete
  24. DougLoss:
    "I don't care if individual party big-wigs announce their support for a candidate in the primary, but to use party funds to support one candidate over the other in the primary is over the line."

    Actually, I *do* get it. The people you call "party big-wigs" have given extra time and effort (and in some cases money) to their party so that they could have a greater voice in guiding their party. Just like big companies in America, they earned the extra influence they have. (And just like big companies in America, there are probably a *very* few bad apples that sleazed their way in. Very few.)

    You, like I, don't have nearly as much influence as your "party big-wigs". And you think that's unfair.

    You say that "in a primary the voters should be left to decide their party's candidates for the various open races without such heavy-handed 'guidance' from the party hierarchy".

    What this amounts to is, you'd like to re-distribute party influence equally -- the outcome of spending time, effort, and money risked. Exactly like the Marxists who want to re-distribute wealth equally -- the outcome of effort of spending time, effort, and money risked. Make all the outcomes equal.

    That's your choice.

    And I think that people who *do* want to re-distribute wealth or re-distribute party influence either haven't thought the matter through, or just want to enforce everybody sharing everything they have.

    There are a lot of people out there who don't like the fact that when they are born, they are joining Life late in the game -- and there are already players that have a big head start. They cry "Foul!" because as they grew up they learned about everybody starting the game equally, and that's not their position. And they are sufficiently naive that they think Life is a zero-sum game rather than the reality in which wealth can be created from nothing.

    Well, I'm not rich, but I don't want to re-distribute wealth. And I'm not a "party big-wig", but I don't want to re-distribute party influence. And this second item is one of the big differences between our points of view. Apparently you believe that the party was given to the world from on high and that everyone should be able to share and share alike in its bounty. But that's not how any party was created -- the party was made and it's power is maintained by the varying efforts of the "party big-wigs".

    "Oh, and please don't tell me again that I owe my vote to the community, that I should vote in such a way as I think they'd like. That is a deeply insulting thing to say. My vote is mine, no one else's."

    You don't owe your vote to "the community". As far as I can tell, you never understood how a party works. You continue to think that others should vote for your majority nominee, but when the tables are turned and it is you in the minority, you shouldn't have to vote for their majority candidate.

    That's also your choice.

    There's a reason that just before he died Patrick Henry orated, "United we stand, divided we fall. Let us not split into factions which must destroy that union upon which our existence hangs.” Henry understood the value of how a party works.

    ReplyDelete
  25. qwer - I'm going to have to side with Doug on the issue of the PA primary re: Specter. The Party Bosses should not be deciding who is going to get the nomination, in the sense that they are pouring Party money into the Primary race. They should be supporting the nominee AFTER the nomination, because the Party money should be used to defeat the other Party's candidate. Each candidate should be having to raise his own money for campaigning in the Primary.

    It's just like the Unions throwing their money into politics without regard to where their members want that money to go. Everyone who donated to the Party doesn't get to have a say in how it's spent? Sounds like the Dems to me.

    ReplyDelete
  26. No qwer, you don't get it, although wayne does. The party money is not something that should be used to support one party member over another in the primary. Use your influence among other party members, use your powers of persuasion, that's all fine. But to use the resources of the party (resources that were contributed by people from both sides of the primary contest) to try to ensure the selection of one primary candidate over the other is wrong. Call me whatever you like (and I still resent your tone), you won't change that.

    ReplyDelete
  27. DougLoss:
    "But to use the resources of the party (resources that were contributed by people from both sides of the primary contest) to try to ensure the selection of one primary candidate over the other is wrong."

    wayne:
    "The Party Bosses should not be deciding who is going to get the nomination, in the sense that they are pouring Party money into the Primary race. They should be supporting the nominee AFTER the nomination, because the Party money should be used to defeat the other Party's candidate. Each candidate should be having to raise his own money for campaigning in the Primary."

    Clearly, neither of you believe that the people who've risen to the party's leadership should be allowed to direct the party resources in the way that they think is in the best interests of the party. Instead, they should direct the party resources in the way that *you* think is in the best interests of the party -- hobbled by your ad hoc rule. But you don't want to be bothered to go through the effort and risk of attempting to get into party leadership. (On that, I don't blame you -- I have other things I'd rather do as well.)

    I suppose you could always pass a law to control how money is allowed to be spent in a Primary by the people who lead a party. Perhaps you believe that *that* would better "level the playing field". And when that doesn't do what you expect, you can pass further laws to "close the loopholes".

    And I suspect that the Democrats would be willing to support such laws. (Maybe, now that McCain is nationally famous, even *he* would be willing to support such a law given that such laws would likely help those candidates who are already better known.)

    And (either with your rule, or with a law) you can just ignore whether the people who contributed money to party might actually have been aware that their party leaders would put that money toward goals developed by the leadership, itself.

    Well, I disagree with Marxists wanting to control wealth that they didn't earn. Hence, I disagree with you both on this point.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Gents- I have a serious problem using the word "party", I think for obvious reasons. At some point it became clear to the politically well resourced that much could be done without a lot of effort by utilizing the resources of others.
    Those of us lazy enough to send money and influence to people who produce little if anything of value more or less deserve what we get. California's Teachers' union comes to mind, as do most other "well-intentioned" groups of self important "leaders" of the common, if docile proletariat. Do you all know how ridiculous you sound? Get a freaking grip, you sound like college age commies with a bankroll supplied by mumsy and papa. Political parties are a ruse to control and command vast numbers of otherwise intelligent people; people who, again, are too lazy or pre-occupied to invest some of their own energy in their OWN for God's sake "Governance". Do the words "apparatchik", comrade, or Dacha ring a tinkling bell?

    What's a mother to do? Voting? Delegates? Conventions? MSNBC, FOX,
    MSM, etc.? Do you not get that the game is up? Take a very deep breath
    and a long scotch, when it arrives at your doorsteps, don't say you weren't warned.

    Our "system", our "process" is on a precipice of suspicious origin. All it takes in the very near future is some sort of incident driven chaos, and bang zoom, we get somebody like Alex "I'm in charge here" Haig. A junta, an "emergency" ruling cabal, whatever, the scenario is drooling at our back door. Who's to save the day, a tortured but heroic geezer, a certifiable, drooling psychotic woman, an idiot cover gent? Gentlemen, without wanting to alarm us, the shit's in the pipeline.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Bill,
    "Gentlemen, without wanting to alarm us, the sh%t's in the pipeline."

    Thanks for the rant. Sorry to hear that they are all out to get us common folk. I assume the reason the common man has gotten so comfortable over the last decade, etc. is merely because they are deliberately fattening us up for the "kill".

    "All it takes in the very near future is some sort of incident driven chaos"

    I'd be on the lookout for something that looks spectacular but is easy to engineer -- maybe downing the twin towers by planting charges? Nope, it's been done. Need something more spectacular. Don't worry, I'll keep my laugh pealed.

    ReplyDelete
  30. qwer- noted. I'd like to remind you, with all respect, that it was just before 9/11 that those of us who thought Khalid Sheikh Muhammad
    was an odd sort to be trafficking with our people were dismissed with similar disdain and diffidence. Until just the last few years, I was docile and complacent like many others, "rant" is a fine compliment, and I thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I suppose you could always pass a law to control how money is allowed to be spent in a Primary by the people who lead a party.

    qwer, I know you have been doing a lot of writing, trying to convince people that the whole, "Not McCain, no way," attitude is counterproductive, but looking back at the way this thread has developed, maybe you need to take a breather. The implications you've been making in the past two days have been pretty bad.

    Nowhere did Doug or I indicate that we want there to be a law of any such type as you mentioned. We said it was dishoborable to act in such a fashion, disrupting the constituents' ability to get representation of their choosing. It just smacks to much of the socialist, "We're going to make your choice for you, because you're too incompetent," approach of the radical Left.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I've got to agree with wayne, qwer. I've always liked your points of view on various issues. Now that we have differing views vis-a-vis McCain you seem to be edging perilously close to personal attacks on my (and wayne's?) honor and principles. I don't think that's what you meant, but that's how it looks to me. Oh, and you are certainly making numerous "straw-man" arguments, imputing positions to me I never took so that you can refute them.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Qwer- I'm entitled to your misunderstanding of my posts, but also to the ideas I have that generate them. The chaos I describe is patent, you resort to attacking me as a black helicopter sort? My comment that you sound like a hard lefty seems to echo with at least two others. God Bless You, I don't think of myself as the "problem".You seem to.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Here's my take on it:

    1. I wanted Fred - I believed in Fred (something that hasn't happened in a long time) I believed that America needed a thoughtful, careful statesman, rather than a slick, high-power politician.

    2. I liked Romney more than McCain, but he turned out to be too much of a gentleman to meet McCain on his own ground & too concerned about Hillary/Obama to let a too-close fight for the GOP nomination interfere with a national GOP campaign to stop them.

    (wish we could say the same for Huck - guess we see where his prioroties are...)

    3. Even 4 years under Hillary would quickly be untenable - and would have a HUGE potential to become much, much longer than 4 years worth of BAD.

    4. The only way it would be better under Obama, is that he doesn't *yet* know his way around well enough to strong-arm the country's remaining "leadership" into socialist-faceted areas/directions - which would, in turn, well & truly SCREW large sections of our country/government/culture.

    5. I do not like McCain, nor trust him on many issues, but he has at least a couple of positions on which he has the good of the Republic in mind - which is FAR more than I can say for O'Billary.

    Doug, there is a time & place for the "tough love" of "punishing the party" to "send a message".

    In other times, handing the other side a win would be a suitable & reasonable 'tweaking of the GOP's nose' and saying "There, how do you like that? Maybe next time you'll listen!"

    - "Here & Now" would be much like stopping to give your kids a talking-to & time-out... while everyone's running for the bomb-shelter.

    Using the other side to 'send a message' was something we could do - back in the day, when the alternative was the "Loyal Opposition", whose views were different but could be counted on to at least care for the American People and love the country.

    Look close & pay attention - they aren't the Loyal Opposition anymore - and we can't afford to use them.

    They really have become too dangerous to the America we know & want.

    This isn't about 'unconditional support' - and my values and beliefs demand that I do what I can to give our country it's best chance to survive, both in the long and short-term...especially when the latter has such a great potential to adversely affect the former.

    - MuscleDaddy

    ReplyDelete
  35. I completely understand what you say, Muscledaddy. But I've heard the idea that there's a time and a place for "tough love" but now isn't it used as a justification to water down our principles too many times. In fact, it seems that there's never a time to do it; every election is too important to stand on our principles. As I said before, I'm a Dutchman and I've reached the wall. This is the time for me. Give me someone I can vote for without cringing, someone I trust not to continually poke his finger in my eye. Otherwise I won't vote for any candidate for president. I will certainly vote for conservatives in every election I can find them running in, and even for moderates who's positions I can accept and who I believe aren't lying to me.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "...every election is too important to stand on our principles.

    That doesn't seem accurate.

    Kerry, Gore (which turned out to be more important after than during that election), Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale...

    None of these were seen as a real, viable threat to the country or our way of life - or could be realistically saddled with the appellation of 'hating america and what it stands for'.

    Each, either at the time or in retrospect, were merely viewed as incompetent or 'the wrong choice' at worst - regardless of how their elections turned out.

    Even Bubba liked Big Macs too much for me to believe that he would allow the capitalist system that created them to be destroyed - no matter how disappointed I was at his election/re-election.

    None of those elections were 'too important' for statement-making (I was a Perot-guy, myself)

    Maybe it's because my work puts the dangerous underbelly of the world in my full view, and I know the answer to 'how bad could it get' - but I have never before actually feared the possible outcome of a presidential election.

    Too important. Too dangerous.

    This one rates.

    - MuscleDaddy

    ReplyDelete
  37. Wayne,
    "I know you have been doing a lot of writing, trying to convince people that the whole, "Not McCain, no way," attitude is counterproductive,"

    I'm not interested in who you vote for. I'm interested in you understanding how a Party works. Personally, I think I've achieved that. What you do with the information is entirely up to you.

    As I believe that a Party is based on those three things I've delineated (the Golden Rule, influence by merit, creating political power so as to avoiding hanging separately), I'll vote for the Party's majority nominee. I do it based on my principles. It actually fits into a larger principle, which is the point of this post's title: "Neighbors".

    "We said it was dishoborable to act in such a fashion, disrupting the constituents' ability to get representation of their choosing."

    And now you're aware that I believe it is dishonorable to be a fair-weather Party supporter. (Specifically, as I've said, I believe that it violates the Golden Rule.) You have your reasons, I have mine. You follow your principles, and I'll follow mine.

    "Oh, and you are certainly making numerous "straw-man" arguments, imputing positions to me I never took so that you can refute them."

    Any time you'd like to be specific, I'm willing to look closely at the wording just to see if your comment has merit. Personally, I don't think I have made any such arguments. Again, we seem to disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  38. dougloss,
    "Now that we have differing views vis-a-vis McCain"

    I believe with have approximately the same views on McCain. But we clearly have differing views on what a Party is.

    "you seem to be edging perilously close to personal attacks on my (and wayne's?) honor and principles."

    You both appear to disagree with me on the value of the Golden Rule in your Party's majority nominee. You both appear to disagree with me on influence by merit within the Party. You both appear to disagree me on Party leadership performing its mandate.

    I believe that by commenting on these differences, I've made it clear that I value different principles than you. Some people might call that "edging perilously close to personal attacks". I don't. But feel free to point out specifics. I'm always open to discussion.

    [As an aside, it looks like I've inadvertently included a quote from you in my previous response to Wayne. I'll include it here, where it was supposed to go.]

    "Oh, and you are certainly making numerous "straw-man" arguments, imputing positions to me I never took so that you can refute them."

    Any time you'd like to be specific, I'm willing to look closely at the wording just to see if your comment has merit. Personally, I don't think I have made any such arguments. Again, we seem to disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  39. bill mecorney,
    "The chaos I describe is patent"

    Patent? Let's take a deep breath and double-check a representative sampling.

    "you sound like college age commies with a bankroll supplied by mumsy and papa."

    "Political parties are a ruse to control and command vast numbers of otherwise intelligent people"

    "Do the words "apparatchik", comrade, or Dacha ring a tinkling bell?"

    "Do you not get that the game is up?"

    "Take a very deep breath and a long scotch, when it arrives at your doorsteps, don't say you weren't warned."

    "Our "system", our "process" is on a precipice of suspicious origin."

    "A junta, an "emergency" ruling cabal, whatever, the scenario is drooling at our back door."

    "Who's to save the day, a tortured but heroic geezer, a certifiable, drooling psychotic woman, an idiot cover gent?"

    Having double-checked, I find extraordinary claims mixed with scary but fuzzy predictions. I also find not only no extraordinary evidence to back up the claims, but no evidence at all.

    That's pretty much how I define someone who owns and operates a tin-foil hat.

    So, maybe there's some large body of well vetted evidence that it just slipped your mind to mention. How would *I* know?

    "you resort to attacking me as a black helicopter sort?"

    "Resort to attacking" you? Hardly. I'm not attacking. I'm calling a spade a spade.

    You seem like a nice enough fellow on other subjects. Maybe a different style of post would better help you get your points across. Something without the "certifiable, drooling psychotic" in it.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I, for one, am in complete agreement with MuscleDaddy on this. I would also like to include here a quote from Kim Du Toit that I saw at his site today. Remember that he was one of the biggest McCain bashers around. He appears to have realized what is at stake now.
    From his website:
    "By not voting Republican—even one as flawed as McCain—we will be handing this country over to the peaceniks, and on this I am absolutely certain. The Democrat Party, in the shape of their current leadership, loathes and despises the military. While they talk in public about “bringing the troops home”, concern for the soldiers is not their primary, secondary, or even tertiary motive. We know that, they know that, and that’s the beginning and end of it.

    Furthermore, if we wake up on November 5th to President-Elect Obama or President-Elect Clinton, and then we turn on the TV to see joyous street demonstrations all over the Arab world, how will we feel then?

    And when, in 2009, President Obama/Clinton nominates some pinko jurist with a love for a Silly Putty Constitution (or maybe two pinko jurists), the Supreme Court will swing sharply Left, for decades.

    There’s only one thing to do: elect McCain, and at the same time, elect conservative Republicans to Congress, in 2008, in 2010, and in 2012.

    I know; McCain’s a total shit, and I loathe him. But in the end, I love my country more than I hate John McCain—and handing over the reins of power to the Left will, with absolute certainty, bring this country down—just as the Left has brought down Britain, France and the rest of Europe.

    Not gonna happen. Not while I draw breath.

    This is not the time to pout. This, my friends, is our last stand. If we don’t win this one, the job is going to be incalculably more difficult in the future, both for us and for our kids.

    And forget that childish “vote from the rooftops” nonsense, and all the End Times fantasies. They are not going to happen.

    Big Government is going to happen, under President Obama/Clinton. That is an absolute certainty."

    --------------------------------------------

    Best to all~Svin

    ReplyDelete
  41. qwer- You know, you make some solid points regarding my style, and I too, enjoy your writing as others do. I think that post (mine) did come across as at least mildly neurotic. You may not believe this, but in my opinion I don't write enough. I know, Oh No. If I had the space to get out some of this worry I had regarding our homeland, I might not blind you with the tin foil. I'm not a "truther" but I also believe I want to know more about what happened. Your seamless prose got a little wobbly there too, friend; McCain isn't the end of the world, and because I let off a little steam, you needn't go all ad hominen and straw man on us. You did sound like a Birkenstock wearing corn row caucasian there for a moment. At least to this helicopter pilot.

    ReplyDelete
  42. qwer, here are your straw man arguments:

    "You, like I, don't have nearly as much influence as your 'party big-wigs'. And you think that's unfair." That's not what I said. Influence, no problem. Spending party money to promote one favored party member in a primary over another, big problem.

    "Secondly, I don't understand why you dislike a bunch of people in your party who are busy supporting their candidate. Presumably, this is what you did with your own candidate. Do you dislike them because you don't like their candidate?" Same answer as above. Support your candidate all you like. Just don't use the communal funds of the party to support one party faction over another.

    "What this amounts to is, you'd like to re-distribute party influence equally -- the outcome of spending time, effort, and money risked. Exactly like the Marxists who want to re-distribute wealth equally -- the outcome of effort of spending time, effort, and money risked. Make all the outcomes equal." Flat-out false, qwer. I've explained it more than once. Spend your own time, effort, and money however you like. Don't dip into the party purse to support one subset of the party over another.

    "I'm sorry, but you appear to be just complaining that the party weather isn't to your liking -- and hasn't been for awhile. And you're willing to make certain the election goes to someone who'll collect everyone else's raincoat in addition to yours." This is somewhat insulting. I am certainly saying that there are some major problems within the Republican party, which I think is hardly disputable. I've worked within the party for many years, and supported candidates I didn't vote for in the primaries once the general election rolled around. But to think that I owe my vote to the party even if it nominates someone I think is grossly unfit for the office is a complete misunderstanding of the relationship of the individual voter to the party. Frankly, I do think there have been some shenanigans going on in some of the Republican primaries so far, but my state hasn't voted yet. But my vote is mine and mine alone. I owe it to no party. In fact, I owe it to my country to vote for the person I feel is best qualified for the office. Unfortunately, at this time I don't think any of the candidates running is qualified. So you ask me to vote for the one I think is only moderately unqualified, rather than another I think is even more unqualified. Sorry, no can do.

    ReplyDelete
  43. dougloss,
    "Influence, no problem. Spending party money to promote one favored party member in a primary over another, big problem."

    Okay, but for me, their ability to influence includes using the tools at their disposal. And that includes the Party resources that they control, as long as they, themselves, comply with the Party's rules. For you, the Party resources are out of bounds for use while they attempt to influence their rank and file.

    I don't mind that you differ with me over how this word, "influence", is applied to Party resources under the control of the Party leadership. But I have continued to use that word in what I consider its normal meaning. Their job is to spend the money as they see fit to benefit their Party. It is a tool that they can use to help influence their own rank and file.

    Hence, I don't consider my comment to be a straw man argument at all. I've been consistent throughout on this use of the word, "influence".

    "Support your candidate all you like. Just don't use the communal funds of the party to support one party faction over another."

    Same as the answer above. These aren't "communal" funds. And they *are* intended to be used by the Party leadership. I believe in leadership by merit. So, from my viewpoint, the Party leaders were doing what they were supposed to be doing -- leading, and spending the money over which they had been granted control to that end. I may not like they candidate they were supporting (Specter) but that is irrelevant. You're the one who has this exception: allowing the Party leadership using every tool under their control, except the Party funds, to influence the rank and file. Again, this is hardly a straw man argument. You actually *are* complaining about them using a tool given into their control to influence the rank and file.

    "Spend your own time, effort, and money however you like. Don't dip into the party purse to support one subset of the party over another."

    And again, the "party purse" doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is a fund to be used (in compliance with Party rules) to benefit the Party as it's leadership sees fit. You want to have a new rule that the Party leadership can't use this fund to support its preferred candidates in a Party primary. That's fine. But they aren't breaking any rules until you get that new rule adopted.

    So, where I said "What this amounts to is, you'd like to re-distribute party influence equally", I'm willing to concede that I was wrong. In its stead, I should have limited myself to "What this amounts to is, you'd like to re-distribute party influence over how the Party fund is spent by the leadership, under whose control it resides, equally among the rank and file." So, it's not exactly like the Marxists who want to re-distribute wealth equally -- it's only a small subset of that kind of re-distribution. Again, I was wrong to over-generalize. Sorry about that.

    "But to think that I owe my vote to the party even if it nominates someone I think is grossly unfit for the office is a complete misunderstanding of the relationship of the individual voter to the party."

    I don't think that you "owe" your vote to the Party even if it nominates someone you think is grossly unfit for the office. Rather, I think that *I* owe *my* vote even in that case. And I'm telling you why this is demanded by the principles I follow. (I've also mentioned that these principles have been followed by Reagan, McCain, and Henry -- not to persuade you, but rather to clear up some of the confusion that I've seen written about Reagan's behavior, about McCain's behavior, and about Henry's view of a Party.)

    You've mentioned your principles. Well and good, so I'm mentioning mine. I'm willing to agree to disagree.

    "Frankly, I do think there have been some shenanigans going on in some of the Republican primaries so far"

    Name 'em and let's roust the miscreants. I'm a big believer in "break a deal, face the wheel."

    "I owe it to my country to vote for the person I feel is best qualified for the office. Unfortunately, at this time I don't think any of the candidates running is qualified."

    I'll be voting for the best "qualified candidate" as well. I view it as a relative term, not an absolute one.

    "So you ask me to vote for the one"

    You've got me wrong. I'm not doing any asking. I'm stating the principles on which I base my own behavior, and I'm explaining why I am not following the current groundswell (you appear to be in a numerous company) of abstain-for-McCain opinion. It has nothing to do with McCain, or who you personally vote for.

    ReplyDelete
  44. bill mecorney,
    "You may not believe this, but in my opinion I don't write enough."

    No harm, no foul. Keep writing.

    "You did sound like a Birkenstock wearing corn row caucasian there for a moment."

    I may again at any moment. Keep your eyes peeled. Heh.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Doug,

    "In fact, I owe it to my country to vote for the person I feel is best qualified for the office."

    The key & operative word there is "best", which implies "...of what is available."

    Otherwise, we'd all have to hold out for Fred(!)

    - MuscleDaddy

    ReplyDelete
  46. If you both are at odds about anything, shouldn't you also look at the entity. When bright people disagree, it may be helpful to analyze the source of the disagreement. Replace the word "Party" with "Union". However you feel about Unions(I generally find them distasteful), aren't the parties co-opting some of what should be our effort and decision?
    I generally don't like anyone to make my choices for me, Am I not able to winnow out the bastards from the beautiful? Why is the Party winnowing the Field in the first place? I can't choose from two or three (or more) on a general election ballot? Who died and made any body king of choice for America? "Paul" can't win, Fred is Lazy, we must choose between.... WHAT?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Mr. Mecorney,

    Just a thought: You probably don't want to get a 'Fred is Lazy' thing started.

    That (like the "fire-in-the-belly" pap)was something the bottom-feeders in the media (both sides) came up with to combat Fred's otherwise unassailable conservatism/common-sense, to a short-attention-span, sound-bite-driven populace.

    ...not unlike having a debate moderator ask him not one, single question - so that the professional hairdoos can wittily quip about how silent he was...

    - MuscleDaddy

    ReplyDelete
  48. I'm through with the McCain dispute. Qwer, you and I agree on much more than we disagree on. Friends? :)

    Is this a good place to talk about the ongoing Republican attack on talk radio (who would have ever expected that?), or should I wait for a front page article first?

    ReplyDelete
  49. "Friends? :)"

    Like Laurel and Hardy. (You'll occasionally need to duck. Heh.)

    "or should I wait for a front page article first?"

    Posted.

    ReplyDelete

We reserve the right to delete comments, but the failure to delete any particular comment should not be interpreted as an endorsement thereof.

In general, we expect comments to be relevant to the story, or to a prior comment that is relevant; and we expect some minimal level of civility. Defining that line is inherently subjective, so try to stay clear of insulting remarks. If you respond to a comment that is later deleted, we may take your response with it. Deleting your comment isn't a personal knock on you, so don't take it as such.

We allow a variety of ways for commenters to identify themselves; those who choose not to do so should take extra care. Absent any prior context in which they may be understood, ironic comments may be misinterpreted. Once you've earned a reputation for contributing to a conversation, we are likely to be more tolerant in those gray areas, as we'll understand where you're coming from.