The Irrelevant Voters

Sierra Times ^ | May 18, 2006 | John Bender

[George W. Bush]

Neither the Bushiban nor the Clintonistas are of any real interest to the respective parties. Those votes are there and counted before the polls ever open. The parties and individual politicians fight for and court the other 40% of the voters.

This keeps coming up. I've actually seen FReepers so ignorant that they argue that those who might not vote are in fact irrelevant. The truth is that if you are in the 30% who is physically incapable of voting for someone else or just not voting, then you are the voter who is taken for granted. Not those guys who have issues they care about.

This is what elections are about. Yet even some FReepers don't seem to grasp it.

[George W. Bush]

Polls suggest this had dropped to more like 10% on the Republican side.

No, you forget the old people. That's the hard base that simply will not fail to vote for The Party. Essentially, it's the senile vote.

[George W. Bush]

The GOP did NOT want Dr. Tom Coburn of OK, the truest of conservatives, to win his primary. Thank God the Republicans of OK swept him to victory in the primary against the Party's will.

He did it with the money of Club For Growth, conservatives who no longer trust the GOP with their political money. They don't have a litmus on abortion, sodomy marriage, or the borders. But their candidates just happen to line up strongly on those issues outside a few very liberal states. Their main agenda is cutting spending, cutting taxes, deregulation, school choice. IOW, the old Reagan-Gingrich agenda.

The Club's candidates have been winning this year, my 2007 congressman among them. And our main target for defeat is Lincoln Chafee. We're running Laffey, Cranston mayor, against him. Laffey isn't as conservative as we'd like but he's miles ahead of Chafee. And at some point, we have to get cull the GOP herd of these RINOs.

[George W. Bush]

2. He has reduced the growth of government spending (discretionary)

To the contrary, he insisted on increasing discretionary spending, including the fraudulently presented Pill Bill. But you're right that he's not up for re-election anyway so we need to keep clear heads and focus on enacting policy with our congresscritters in our districts. It's the republican way.

[lonestar67]

I think most of the Bush bashing is irrational. Its motive is rooted in a sense that opinion polls control Bush.

One of the many things I like about Bush is that he is not controlled by polls.

I think if reactionaries (conservative and liberal alike) can be shown that this polling game is utterly meaningless, perhaps they will engage in credible political dialogue.

I like Bush.

[lonestar67]

No, he has reduced the growth of discretionary spending. Take a look at this fact check article:

http://www.factcheck.org/article139.html

You will immediately notice that it says you are right. The headline says Bush is a liar which everyone likes to say these days.

If you read to the bottom of the article you find that homeland security and military spending are treated as discretionary. I think that is bogus. There was and is no political feasibility to a world without Homeland security or our military spending levels to fight the WOT. If this is what defines conservatism then I am not a conservative. It is good to fight this WAR on terror. It is good to defend the homeland. We are at war.

Reactionaries who try to make Bush out to be a big spender are misrepresenting him.


This White House has done much to curtail Congressional spending. He ought to be given credit for that as a conservative. There have been 39 veto threats that have helped reduce the growth of spending by Congress.

[George W. Bush]

If you read to the bottom of the article you find that homeland security and military spending are treated as discretionary. I think that is bogus.

They are discretionary because they are not entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security that are considered off-limits for actual cuts.

Changing the categories is simply dishonest. It's not what you feel, it's what Congress has put in those categories that counts. It's been this way when both parties held the majority.

There have been 39 veto threats that have helped reduce the growth of spending by Congress.

Veto threats mean zero. Only actual vetoes mean something. And the way Bush and the RINOs conducted themselves during the Pill Bill fiasco, threatening to run people against House Republicans to defeat them in their primaries, should tell you a lot. I doubt it will, given how dishonest your standards are.

[Rex Anderson]

If neither party is right on your issue, don’t vote or vote third party.

Fortunately, most informed voters do not choose to vote for a candidate on one issue.

[LAMBERT LATHAM]

I've actually seen FReepers so ignorant that they argue that those who might not vote are in fact irrelevant. The truth is that if you are in the 30% who is physically incapable of voting for someone else or just not voting, then you are the voter who is taken for granted. Not those guys who have issues they care about.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think some of those people are party shills. Both parties now have paid and volunteer shills who work the sites that favor each party. I heard it started in 1999 and expanded since then. As the election gets closer watch for the 30%ers and the shills to become more shrill and more insistant that any vote except a straight party vote only helps the other side.

[citizen]

Many of us do that, but we end up with candidates like Bob Dole.

Bob Dole would always tell you what Bob Dole thought.

[FerdieMurphy]

He is free to do pretty much what he wants.

Yes indeed.

[George W. Bush]

I think some of those people are party shills. Both parties now have paid and volunteer shills who work the sites that favor each party.

I know some say this, including JimRob. I think the parties have better ways to spend their money.

I have considered that the libs might encourage their campaign staffers and staff at their NGO's and activist groups to spend a little time each day working the conservative boards. Having them do 5-10 minutes per day would be significant since they have thousands of parasites on staff. But I tend to doubt they have full-time employees that do nothing but infiltrate conservative forums. For one thing, sooner or later, such an operation would come to light (a disgruntled mole would rat them out for a news story fee, etc.).

[LAMBERT LATHAM]

As I understand it, and this is third hand from a teacher who says she did this, the party goes to a union or some other group and hands out some party building money. The union or what ever group gets as many staff, members and so forth to work at it an hour a week free. If they still need more help they pay members to work 3 hours a week. Plus the parties task both paid and unpaid staff to work the sites.

Its just like putting out yard signs or opening mail. When they can get people to do it for free they do when they can't they pay a little something.

[George W. Bush]

You may be right. I may be discounting their efforts more than I should. I mostly think of full-time shills when people talk about paid operatives. Heck, I wish someone would pay me to infiltrate DU. But my troll account over there got banned for being too openly pro-gun. Got called a FReeper and booted. But I still didn't get a check from the RNC.

[LAMBERT LATHAM]

Yeah, I never got a check for putting out yard signs either but I know people who claim they have. They didn't get much $55.00 to put out 500 signs but it paid their gas and bought them lunch.

[LAMBERT LATHAM]

It is a simple fact that if a voter tells either party "...but I will support the party's candidate in November," they won't hear another word he says.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You're very right about that. As soon as somebody says that neither party cares what he wants or thinks.

[Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin]

"The Republicans have so-called conservatives who would vote for Arlen Specter rather than Thomas Jefferson, because Specter is a Republican and Jefferson was a Democrat."

I think many would vote for Spector simply because Jefferson is dead...

[Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin]

"The reason this works is because too many Americans don’t understand politics and how a republic works."

Says the elitest, "This country BELONGS to us politicians, so you best get that through that dern, thick skull of yers..."

[FerdieMurphy]

... think many would vote for Spector simply because Jefferson is dead...

Yes, there is that Darla.

I think there was a trace of sarcasm in that analogy.

[Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin]

I know. Just had to add that. However, initial the analogy is much, much more true than many realize...