Posted on 07/10/2008 4:54:20 PM PDT by NewJerseyJoe
I understand the frustration of many Republicans who just cant understand how some conservatives just cant 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
Its still a long, long way to election day. Many conservatives who are saying today that they cant 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 youll catch more wayward conservatives with honey than you will with vinegar.
For example, heres 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 hes not this, or that enough for you, he is 10,000% better than the alternative. SO, enough of the Hes not my first choice crappola. McCain is your choice, period. Got it? Because, if you cant suffer your personal political problems in silence, we dont want to freaking HEAR from you. This aint 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, theres a very good chance the conservative will go the other way just for spite. We are, at our core, anti-authoritarians. We dont like being told what to do. By anybody.
And while John McCain might be the Republican nominee, he wasnt 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 hes the Republican nominee. It is John McCains obligation to earn my vote. So far, he hasnt. Doesnt mean he cant. He just hasnt yet.
But I can tell you this: Telling me to suffer the McCain nomination in silence and get with the program aint gonna cut it. That dog wont 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.
I’m simply saying that the thread I linked to is a perfect example of what this thread is talking about - that saying “shut up and get in line with McCain” is not a particularly effective way of winning over those of us who think he’s a giant steaming turd of a nominee.
“Shut your stinking trap” goes well beyond mere “statement of opinion.” My response to that kind of “persuasion” is generally of the “bite me” variety.
And I am also saying: so what?
Is that really a reason to not vote for someone or not vote against someone?
Why is it so meaningful that people who hold these views feel they need to be courted so sweetly? Again, I agree that civility is a must.
However, unless one is quite self-defensive and unable to articulate the bases for one's views or least one's line of reasoning ("line" being the operative word), I just don't see why so much time and personal energy is spent more or less demanding that arguments be made in such a way that one doesn't find them offensive.
When someone, in my opinion, acts badly to me, I ask them to stop and I ask them please to state their reasoning or views so that I can engage that. And if they keep on acting badly, maybe I josh with them for a while, hoping they will actually get around to stating a substantive point.
If they never do, I just move on. I don't go on and on and on about how---THAT's IT!---they will never "persuade" me of their point-of-view because they were rude.
Again, basic civility, yes. But simply finding the way a comment was presented offensive and---key here---THEN CONCLUDING that person's offensive behavior IMPACTS HOW YOU VOTE for President of the United States . . . sorry, I don't get that.
Is it too much of a leap for you to understand that some of us don’t like McCain at all, and also don’t want Obama to win? I haven’t yet decided what to do, but claiming that that means I want Obama to win is asking for an unpleasant reaction from me. I’m waiting to see where things are in November, and I’m still thinking through which of the two would be worse in the scheme of things. The only thing I’m sure of so far is that both options suck.
I think the point here is that such behavior does *not* influence how people vote. Telling me to “shut up and get in line” behind McCain will just get a smirk and maybe a “bite me” out of me, although it doesn’t “offend” me. It’s just a stupid, futile way to try to convince someone to vote for McCain.
It also doesn’t particularly push me away from McCain - he spends plenty of time doing that himself. Whether shrill, rude, boorish, stupid, or bullying, his supporters’ antics make little difference to my vote. I just wonder if reasoned argument without the insults and insinuations would do anything to convince me. Oh well, maybe I’ll never find out.
Encouraging the Republican Party to think it can abandon its conservative ideals and ignore it's base is not the way to get the best leadership for the country. Their loss of Congress in 2006 did not seem to wake them up. Maybe 2 or 4 years of Democratic control in the White House and Congress is what it will take.
That would be hard for the country, but America has survived worse (remember Jimmy Carter?)
Oh, you can find out if you want to.
Smirking and "bite me" doesn't get you anywhere either, I think you'd agree. Ask people who offend you to stop any uncivil behavior and state your points and explain your reasoning. And listen to theirs.
If that doesn't work, move on.
(And, I'm sorry. People don't say "bite me" stuff unless they have taken personal offense.)
Again, I just get amazed sometimes at how much energy is spent, such as in this article, on claiming the other side is "being mean to me and, therefore, I refuse to be persuaded."
Yet the offended often spend very little time actually explaining why they think that refusing to vote for the Republican nominee does NOT help the Rat get elected. Or explaining why they conclude that helping the Rat nominee get elected does NOT harm the nation.
This is the central issue in all these discussions, yet the major response is "bite me." Often no substance is offered at all.
You may say that bad behavior by those with opposing views does not influence how people vote---frankly, to me this sounds like back-pedalling because many here say exactly the opposite. That is the point of this whole article: "You won't persuade me and I'll dig in my heels if you, somebody from Timbuktu, acts badly and offends me."
It's true that people acting badly don't win arguments: so what? That should have nothing to do with how one seeks out information and debate and then determines how one will vote for President of the United States.
One further point, if I may.
I addressed upthread this idea of wanting to be persuaded. I have been on some threads where, I promise you, the posters come off as though they see themselves sitting on a throne, being fed grapes and fanned with ostrich feathers, while the peasants shuffle forward one at a time to offer their shred of quickly dismissed evidence.
I guess what I'm saying is this: where did this idea come from anyway that people who are commenting on one's comments are trying to persuade one of anything?
I mean: maybe some people are trying to persuade those who disagree with them to agree with them, but many, many posts are simply for the purpose of commenting on one's views, take it or leave it.
Where did this artificial standard come from that other posters are trying to prove something to the Refusniks? Sure, most people disagree with the Refusnik viewpoint; that doesn't mean they are all on a mission to persuade them otherwise.
People post because this is a forum for debate. So they debate. Listen and learn as much or as little as you want. That is all.
Yes, I remember Jimmy Carter. We survived, but we are still dealing with his bungling today, particularly in Iran.
The world is a more dangerous place because of Jimmy Carter. That matters to me and I will vote accordingly.
This offends me.
Okay, I'm kidding. But, really. What is the basis for your comment? Have I ever given you any reason to conclude that I "don't understand that some . . . don't like McCain at all, and also don't want Obama to win?"
I mean: why would you ask such an insinuating question, plus question my intelligence?
See.
Well, I can assure you that it's no leap for me at all. I also don't like McCain and I also don't want Obambi to win. And I also REALLY don't want Obambi to win.
So the question is what to do about that? In my view, there is only one thing I can do: vote for McCain. If I don't vote for McCain, I am helping Obambi get elected and I damnstraight am not going to do that.
That is all.
Why are you so defensive that you claim out of thin air that I have accused you of "wanting Obamba to win?" I have done nothing of the sort.
I'm quite sure you don't WANT Obama to win (although some here do think it will "send a message" and all that pure drivel). Because you said so. In your last post to me.
That said, I do conclude that if you don't vote for McCain, you are helping Obambi get elected---whether you want him to win or not. And vice versa.
Even if one concludes both candidates are "evil," I find there is a moral obligation to do what is available to me to do to STOP the GREATER evil. Which, in this case, I conclude is Obambi. If you conclude McCain is worse, then by all means you should vote for Obambi. Otherwise you are not using your vote to influence the outcome of the election and thus, the future of our country.
I always say it's like this:
It's Superbowl XLII, the Giants v. the Patriots.
You are going into the stadium and a pollster asks you who you support to win Superbowl XLII?
You say: "The Ravens."
Yeah, you CAN do that, but the fact remains that either the Giants or the Patriots are going to win the game.
These are all words demonstrating personal offense.
Beyond basic civility, it's the poster's own subjective reaction as to what constitutes "vinegar" and what constitutes "honey."
John McCain is THE Republican nominee, and though you may think hes not this, or that enough for you, he is 10,000% better than the alternative. SO, enough of the Hes not my first choice crappola. McCain is your choice, period. Got it? Because, if you cant suffer your personal political problems in silence, we dont want to freaking HEAR from you. This aint 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.
Sounds like a McBootlicker from around these parts.
But when you tell a conservative to get with the program, theres a very good chance the conservative will go the other way just for spite. We are, at our core, anti-authoritarians. We dont like being told what to do. By anybody.
DAMNED STRAIGHT!
It is not MY obligation to vote for John McCain just because hes the Republican nominee. It is John McCains obligation to earn my vote. So far, he hasnt. Doesnt mean he cant. He just hasnt yet.
This is what the McBootlickers refuse to face.
"Bite me" is in response to posts like "shut your stinking trap." I think you'd agree that "shut your stinking trap" doesn't qualify as "substance."
(And, I'm sorry. People don't say "bite me" stuff unless they have taken personal offense.)
I do; it's when the comment I'm replying to deserves no more than that.
Yet the offended often spend very little time actually explaining why they think that refusing to vote for the Republican nominee does NOT help the Rat get elected. Or explaining why they conclude that helping the Rat nominee get elected does NOT harm the nation.
OK here you go: voting third party doesn't help Ubama get elected unless you assume that McCain's somehow entitled to my vote as some sort of default position. He's not. Voting third party helps neither of the two get elected. It does nothing to stop Ubama, and it does nothing to help him. I'm not saying that's what I'm going to do; I haven't decided yet.
You may say that bad behavior by those with opposing views does not influence how people vote---frankly, to me this sounds like back-pedalling because many here say exactly the opposite.
It's only backpedaling if I'm backing away from something I said; I can't backpedal away from other people's statements.
Now - as to the decision of who will receive my vote in November: as a short-term, narrow-scope concern, clearly Ubama is worse than McCain. If they were running for dictator, and the world was going to end on January 20, 2013, I would vote for McCain, even though I despise him.
But this is not a dictatorship, and the world will not end on January 20, 2013 (or in December of 2012, as my nutcase friend actually believes).
The merits of voting for McCain over Obama are obvious. Even though McCain is an economically illiterate Global Warmist libtard, he's less of those things than Barry Obama, and Obama's a true-believing socialist and a baby-killing extremist. Obama is well to the left of McCain, and would be a disaster. Voting for Obama is not an option.
But the only things I see in McCain's favor are that he's less damaging than Obama; there's not really anything positive there. Even so, I'll again try to explain why I'm seriously considering sitting this one out by voting third party or leaving the top race on the ballot blank:
First, I fear what a McCain victory will do to conservatism and the Republican Party. It may send a message that a non-conservative Republican can win, and that conservatives are expendable. That could cause significant longer-term damage to the country that would have to be weighed against the damage that on Obama presidency would cause.
Second, there's the issue of the USA not being a dictatorship. Whoever wins will only be part of the equation; Congress has a say as well. McCain is enough of a liberal that I fear that he'll co-opt the entire Republican party. With a McCain presidency we'll see even the Republicans in Congress supporting - or at least not actively opposing - such economy-crippling measures as McCain's idiotic "cap and trade" proposals. Obama would propose the same things, but with Obama I would at least have some hope of the Republicans in Congress fighting him tooth and nail on it (I know...). With McCain in the White House such actions would constitute mutiny against the party; far fewer of the critters would be likely to fight McCain.
Third, I am close to being convinced that either Ubama or McCain would be a complete disaster. If the next four years are to be a disaster for the federal government, I would just as soon have those four years labeled with a big blue "D" rather than an "R".
Listen, I know Obama would be terrible. I'm just not *yet* convinced that a McCain presidency is better in the scheme of things. Basically, I think we're screwed, unless somehow McCain ends up not being nominated in Minneapolis (a guy can dream). I think people can take a principled view that voting for McCain is the best choice we have, but I think there's a principled argument to be made on the other side too.
But being told to "shut my stinking trap" and "get in line," or that my doubts somehow mean that I "want Obama to win" (many have said it to me and others) tends to dim my enthusiasm for making the case for my view. That's why sometimes I respond with something a bit less engaging - if people want to throw rocks at me, I feel no need to make them like me.
“Unless McCain has already earned their’s and they think that should be good enough for the rest of us.”
They would be the cheap whores, those of us holding out are the more high class ones.
That's what some of us are doing when we make comments along the lines of "I see you McCainiacs are out making friends again."Where did this artificial standard come from that other posters are trying to prove something to the Refusniks?
Probably because they're trying to tell us what to do. It seems reasonable to expect them to, you know, convince us to do it, rather than just ordering us around. If they stop telling me what to do, I'll stop demanding to be fed grapes...haha.
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.