Oooh-rah!
|
Posted on 07/10/2008 4:54:20 PM PDT by NewJerseyJoe
I understand the frustration of many Republicans who just can’t understand how some conservatives just can’t bring themselves to support John McCain even though Barack Obama would likely be an even worse president than Jimmy Carter. I really do feel your pain. However…
It’s still a long, long way to election day. Many conservatives who are saying today that they can’t vote for McCain will come around and vote for McCain in November. Heck, I might even be one of them. But let me warn partisan Republicans that you’ll catch more wayward conservatives with honey than you will with vinegar.
For example, here’s what NOT to do if you want to persuade disgruntled (legitimately so) conservatives to vote for McCain in the fall rather than push them further away and force them to dig in their heels. This came to me recently in an email from an unknown McCain supporter:
“John McCain is THE Republican nominee, and though you may think he’s not ‘this,’ or ‘that’ enough for you, he is 10,000% better than the alternative. SO, enough of the ‘He’s not my first choice…’ crappola. McCain is your choice, period. Got it? Because, if you can’t suffer your personal political problems in silence, we don’t want to freaking HEAR from you. This ain’t the Whining Party, this is the Republican Party. Get over yourself, and get with the program.”
It is impossible to overstate exactly how stupid something like this is.
Conservatives, by definition, are independent thinkers. Liberals embody the herd mentality, where being told to “get with the program” actually works. But when you tell a conservative to “get with the program,” there’s a very good chance the conservative will go the other way just for spite. We are, at our core, anti-authoritarians. We don’t like being told what to do. By anybody.
And while John McCain might be the Republican nominee, he wasn’t my choice…or the choice of a great number of Republicans. In fact, John McCain won the nomination by winning a lot of states in which NON-Republicans were allowed to vote for the Republican nominee.
It is not MY obligation to vote for John McCain just because he’s the Republican nominee. It is John McCain’s obligation to earn my vote. So far, he hasn’t. Doesn’t mean he can’t. He just hasn’t yet.
But I can tell you this: Telling me to suffer the McCain nomination in silence and get with the program ain’t gonna cut it. That dog won’t hunt.
Chuck Muth is President and CEO of Citizen Outreach and a professional political consultant. He also is a former executive director of the American Conservative Union, a former National Chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus, a former county GOP chairman, state party executive director, communications director, press secretary, direct mail fundraising consultant and legislative candidate.
And on what almost seems a daily basis, he digs the hole deeper.
“John McCain is THE Republican nominee, and though you may think he’s not ‘this,’ or ‘that’ enough for you, he is 10,000% better than the alternative. SO, enough of the ‘He’s not my first choice…’ crappola. McCain is your choice, period. Got it? Because, if you can’t suffer your personal political problems in silence, we don’t want to freaking HEAR from you. This ain’t the Whining Party, this is the Republican Party. Get over yourself, and get with the program.”
Bwahahaha...that just earned my vote. \sarc. spit.
“But I can tell you this: Telling me to suffer the McCain nomination in silence and get with the program ain’t gonna cut it. That dog won’t hunt.”
Thumbs up...
Oooh-rah!
|
Its a wonder to me why this is so hard for some to grasp.
Unless McCain has already earned their's and they think that should be good enough for the rest of us.
Yeah, but they won’t.
Because there is a large contingent within the GOP that thinks politics is like following your favorite sports team. It isn't about principles, it's about "their guys" winning.
You might find this interesting.
I think you are correct on the team (herd) mentality. However, I will not vote for a man who treats Conservatives with less respect than a baby treats the inside of his diaper.
“There are a good many FReepers who would do well to heed the advice in this essay. “
You’ve got that straight.
I predict some will - the majority won’t. They’ll rail at you/us some more for even suggesting it.
Holy sugar. Almost one thousand replies?!!
I have found the invective coming from the Refusniks worse than the other way around.
Check out some of the threads and see who jumps out of the box with personal attacks and insults. It’s not usually the people who have concluded that the only effective vote is one for either the Republican nominee or the Rat nominee, and between those two, they’re voting for the Republican nominee.
I am wondering where this idea came from that a candidate has to “earn one’s vote.”
If the purpose of your vote ultimately is to get the best leadership for the country, why isn’t the focus on doing what is best for the country given what’s available to you to do, not on whether one person has “earned your vote.”
You may disagree with that post, but it was neither vile nor vulgar. So what did you object to, beyond disagreeing with it?
I agree with you 100% that the email you received was uncalled for and not helpful.
That said, does the author really want to claim that somebody roughly stating their opinion "forces [wayward conservatives--his words in the article, not mine] to dig in their heels?"
Are these "independent" thinkers so easily intimidated? So unsure of their own reasoning that the statement of an opposing view actually makes them feel *defensive*?
Of course, people should debate with civility and without juvenile acts such as namecalling (especially in a first reply). But this idea that people who oppose one's view have an obligation to "win" you over---just like the view that a candidate has an obligation to "win" your vote---is exactly what leads others to think "oh, get over yourself."
The fact is that no one, not one person, has an obligation to "win" you over, persuade you, "prove it" to you or any other such thing.
It's YOUR vote and YOU and YOU ALONE are responsible for obtaining the information you conclude is sufficient for making your decision how to vote.
If you want to dismiss an opinion or fact because of the way it is presented, go ahead.
And think about what the author's saying here: that, beyond common civility, everyone who states their views has to somehow anticipate what the other poster might---for who knows what reason---consider "vinegar" rather than "honey."
There's so much here that smacks of victimhood. If you choose to engage differing points of view as part of testing and refining your conclusions, that's great.
And, while we each have a right to expect civil debate, no one has the "right" to demand that others persuade him, or to declare by fiat that certain arguments (such as, in this example, that failure to vote for the Republican nominee helps the Rat nominee get elected) are or should be off limits. IOW, that such arguments are the poster's definition of "vinegar" and therefore are "not helpful."
Who said anything whatsoever about vile or vulgar? Did you read what this post was about at all?
You must have been reading different threads than me. I see the "refusniks" (as you call them) criticizing McCain; the McCainiacs, on the other hand, go after other Freepers. They have frequently been insulting, demeaning, condescending, and bossy.
If you are claiming that the mere statement of opinion and personal conclusions to this effect---i.e, that failure to vote for the Republican nominee helps the Rat nominee get elected---is offensive, the problem is a much different and fundamental one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
