Posted on 08/09/2008 7:29:47 AM PDT by Will88
"Joe Lieberman, the former Democratic vice-presidential nominee who has endorsed John McCain, is being vetted as a potential running mate for the Republican presidential hopeful, according to an adviser to Mr McCain’s campaign."
"Conservatives would be pissed as hell – I think you would have a revolt, but sometimes John does what John wants to do,” the McCain adviser said.
(Excerpt) Read more at ft.com ...
So we also agree on this! ;-)
Bottom line: so what?
Whether they're more violent isn't the issue here. And it's not whether they may compose higher numbers than us either. (FYI, I just think ours are medicated for the past 8 years)
Because what you, calcowgirl and others have correctly pointed out remains...the democratic party voter has the opportunity to not choose Barack Obama, vote McCain... and still feel like his issues will be addressed maturely.
Given that REALITY, I disagree with your feeling it will only amount to 'three million votes'. Voters are going to stampede away from Obama.
Okay, you keep basing your “reality” on “zero” evidence.
I’ll base mine on U.S. history since about, oh, the 1830’s.
Sorry, but in the United States,—
(1) the winner-take-all system at the national level,
(2) the fact that candidates must win a majority of Electoral College votes to win the election,
(3) and the fact that, if no candidate receives a majority of the vote, the Constitution requires the House of Representatives to decide the Election (and no third party—even Teddy Roosevelt’s-—has fielded more than a handful of candidates for Congress) - - -
make it highly unlikely (shall we say, UNREALISTIC) to conclude that a third party candidate can win the presidency in 2008.
One doesn’t need a time machine to see into the future. One only needs to learn from history and from studying our system to know what the real odds are.
Really? Well, I'll be! So could you be so kind as to pass on tomorrow's lottery numbers? The results of the next Super Bowl would be grand. And you can throw in a stock tip or two while you're at it.
You continue to miss the point; the whole target, for that matter. Yes; if you were to give me even money, I would bet that a major party candidate would win. I'm not questioning that.
What you're missing repeatedly, is that it is this way because you make it so. Election results are not handed down from the heavens, nor or they dice rolls. The realities of what makes them true are so because of the people that participate. People like you.
The point of this is not to make some prediction about what is going to happen. Unlike you, I don't claim that power. The point is to remind you that history is not something that exists outside of our actions like some movie that we passively watch. We make history. The point isn't too predict; it's to decide what our actions will be today. Not the 1830's, not during Teddy Roosevelt's time, not during the Reagan era. Today.
And today, I see not a single reason to enable this one-arty-two-headed disease of a state any longer.
Let me point out something that you might have forgotten: every revolutionary force in history was so because they broke with historical trends, not followed it. See my image above for Exhibit A in this category. If you want to keep telling yourself that you can't do this, be my guest. Bragging that you're doing what history has ordered you to do only engraves your name deeper on those chains around your wrists. And I'm not telling you that you need to take them off. Feel free to keep them. Just please don't suggest that because you don't want to do what is necessary to take them off that it must simply be impossible.
Perhaps just mentioning Cantor and Lieberman helps Johnny with the Jewish vote. Let’s hope so.
Well, anything is a start, I guess.
I want them documented...not deported.
So, you want to reward illegal behavior...by basically legalizing both of their crimes..of illegal entry into the U.S.A.
That's great....
Wrong.
It's not the "realities of . . . the people that participate in elections" that makes it clear that, in 2008, either the Republican or Rat nominee WILL become President of the United States.
It is the reality of our system of government, the three salient points of which I set out in my last post and which you ignored, to wit:
(1) the winner-take-all system at the national level,
(2) the fact that candidates must win a majority of Electoral College votes to win the election,
(3) and the fact that, if no candidate receives a majority of the vote, the Constitution requires the House of Representatives to decide the Election (and no third party—even Teddy Roosevelt’s-—has fielded more than a handful of candidates for Congress).
I have NEVER suggested, nor would I, that it is impossible to change our system of government.
I suggest that it is my studied conclusion that it would be quite STUPID to change our system of government, *in regard to the three particulars set out above,* no matter how easy or hard it is.
The ONLY way a third party candidate can win is for one or more of the above particulars to be radically eliminated.
I am not for that. I feel the wisdom of our founders is elegantly obvious in the way those three prongs work together to prevent the death spiral of extra-major-party factionalism.
If you are talking about overthrowing our system of government, so that those three prongs no longer work together to keep factionalism something that is (1) sorted out primarily WITHIN parties and (2) WITHOUT it being given unchecked and unbalanced capacity to throw a presidential election into chaos, you'd better get cracking if you want to have more than two viable choices on Election Day.
In the meantime, I support our system of electing our president as one that allows for protest (both in the primaries and in the general election), but which limits the possibility for chaos in the transition of power in our highest office.
And since no revolution is going to occur between now and Election Day---nor would your or my refusal to vote or refusal to vote for the Republican or Rat nominee facilitate revolution (even if I so desired)---I intend to do what I view as my duty to secure the best choice, of the viable choices, for my country.
That's why I am voting for McCain.
>Wrong.
>It is the reality of our system of government
I can't believe this simple point isn't getting through. I'll try again.
Both our system of government and what we do with that system is the collective result of our individual choices. Remember that whole concept? I know that the god of "individual choice" kind of get left out of the GOP pantheon a few elections back, but trust me, it still exists.
There is nothing, zero, nada, not a single thing in the world preventing us from collectively choosing to elect someone to the presidency besides these two. Nothing. Heck, for that matter, there's nothing preventing us from nominating someone else: the convention hasn't actually been held, you know. The "reality of our system of government" is so because we choose it to be so. The reality of who we tend to vote for given that reality is also our choice. If the odds are low of a minor party candidate winning, it's because we have chosen to make them low, nothing more.
So I didn't ignore your points. I simply maintained, and continue to do so, that they are irrelevant. I'd also disagree strongly that it is those points solely that have gotten us into the ugly mess we're in now, but that's a separate topic. The point is that those systems, like what we do to them, continue to exist by the choice of people like you. Without your support, they wither and die. The "odds" are of our making, nothing more or less.
Still don't believe me? Let's try an exercise. Let's pick a random person on the street. Now before we talk to them, let's bet whether or not this person has worn a blue tie around his ankle that day. What are the odds of that, you think?
Let's say a billion to one. OK, then. Let's move it to me. Will you bet me one billion of your dollars to one of mine that I haven't worn a blue tie around my ankle today? Hey, that's what the odds say. That must be "reality". I have no control over it. Right?
Our system of government and what we do with it are not "hands dealt to us" or "realities" handed down from above, or anything else that implies that someone else besides us are in control of them. We are in control of them. Completely. If we wanted, we could elect Mike Schmidt. Or Albert Einsten. Or the entire Brady Bunch. Or we could move the election to tomorrow. Or never. Or we could all stay home and play Parcheesi.
And the only thing that affects whether or not these things happen is our choice. Nothing more. Let me repeat: nothing more.
I have NEVER suggested, nor would I, that it is impossible to change our system of government
I'm sorry to have gleaned that, but that is what your statements translate to to me. If you really believe that, though, then there is at least some hope for our agreement.
If that's the case, then I have to disagree with you. In my opinion, our system of governmental system has became a zombie: dead, and doesn't know it.
I suggest that it is my studied conclusion that it would be quite STUPID to change our system of government, *in regard to the three particulars set out above,* no matter how easy or hard it is.
Well, I would take all of what this election is showing us as proof that our system is fragged and a reboot is needed. When there is an election in which not only does half of the population doesn't participate but most of them don't like their candidates, and it's been like this several cycles in a row, I would suggest that the time for change has come.
Don't worry: I have no illusions about how hard it is. But it is my God-honest opinion that at this point, there is absolutely nothing left to lose. As far as I'm concerned, this election might as well have been held in Russia. And just to be sure, I am working on something. The chances of it coming off right?
Oh, I'd say about a billion to one. :-)
Cheers. I think we've gotten to the center of the disagreement, and as such, have probably taken this thread as far as it will go.
Let's just say its a relevant issue - given that (quite arguably ;>) YOU are trying to persuade the "wacky RIGHT" to vote for YOUR candidate, on the basis that YOU say he/she/it can WIN the election.
Numbers count, sport. If not, why do you need my vote?
(FYI, I just think ours are medicated for the past 8 years)
(LOL! There's a winning argument, if I ever saw one! 'Vote the way I suggest, because I think you've received more 'medication' over the last 8 years than the Stalinists!' How about if you kiss my 'small-r' republican @ss? ;>)
Because what you, calcowgirl and others have correctly pointed out remains...the democratic party voter has the opportunity to not choose Barack Obama, vote McCain... and still feel like his issues will be addressed maturely.
And what you have NEVER addressed remains as well - every elected official (or nominated candidate) is a servant of the people, not vice versa. To paraphrase William Rawle (http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle_32.htm), 'to deny that fact would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.' Mr. McCaine works for us - we do NOT work, and NEVER will work, for him. Period.
Voters are going to stampede away from Obama
Let's hope so. With folks like you promoting Mr. McCaine, using arguments such as you employ ("ours are medicated for the past 8 years"), I'm not so sure...
WIJG:Let's just say its a relevant issue - given that (quite arguably ;>) YOU are trying to persuade the "wacky RIGHT" to vote for YOUR candidate, on the basis that YOU say he/she/it can WIN the election. Numbers count, sport. If not, why do you need my vote?
What in the heck are you talking about? And why the caps? The shouting? Chill. My question was that it wasn't germane to the discussion who had more wackys....us or them.
Furthermore, if you've followed the thread conversation, I've made it clear...when it comes to seeing Obama lose...I'm thrilled to see a strategy that will counter the 'lost' conservative vote and make it a non-factor.
McCain choosing Lieberman is marketing and politcal genius, IMO. Whoever thought of that is the new Atwater. The new star.
There sure won't be any Florida recount....that's for sure. And Connecticut goes red.
You'll see...the abstainers won't hurt McCain. Maybe some of the other close races some like myself, forget about.
But as was pointed out to me the unhappy conservative will be courted in 2010 once again. So we can all hug again.
FYI, the 8 year medication comment was that our wackys were sedated by the fact Clinton isn’t in the WhiteHouse. At that time, I was a wacky too.
I think you have not only a comprehension problem, but also a big chip on your shoulder.
Our conversation is through until you lose the attitude and the superiority complex. I’ve been nothing but polite to you.
You already apologized once earlier.
It appears drinking and FReeping don’t mix.
Good evening.
I agree with your last point :) and thank you for a civil discussion.
LOL!!!
My question was that it wasn't germane to the discussion who had more wackys....us or them.
(So long as you define the "wackys?" ;>)
I'm thrilled to see a strategy that will counter the 'lost' conservative vote and make it a non-factor.
Considering McCaine's amnesty proposal - does that include winning the 'illegal alien vote?' Exchanging a few 'conservative' votes for many more 'illegal alien' votes might be a winning strategy for a candidate.
;>)
McCain choosing Lieberman is marketing and politcal genius, IMO.
Oh, you betcha - so long as the 'Independents' who vote for McCaine can replace all of the 'Republicans' who stay home as a result. Of course, if you were right, the first Bush would have been elected to a second term.
;>)
Whoever thought of that is the new Atwater. The new star.
Oh, give me a break. A complete lack of principle, in pursuit of an electoral victory, is pure 'Clinton' - and that's exactly what you're pushing here.
You'll see...the abstainers won't hurt McCain.
Oh, I'm sure you're right - after all, "WHERE ELSE CAN THEY GO?"
;>)
Actually, you've 'been nothing but nonresponsive.' When I highlight the numerous internal inconsistencies in your arguments, you simply refuse to address them.
Not surprising, in the least...
;>)
It appears drinking and FReeping don’t mix.
Ouch! Now you've hurt my feelings.
;>)
However, based on your posts here, I would suggest that 'irrational thought, the historical record, and FReeping don't mix'...
Perhaps.
But Bush #41 wasn't running against Barry Soetoro either, was he?
I thought our conversation was "through until [I] lose the attitude and the superiority complex?" In fact, my attitude seems to be exactly the same, and I don't think I've 'lost' any 'complexes' since your last post.
;>)
As for your question: Bush #41 was running against the corrupt governor of a State that ranked #47 out of 50 (or worse) in most categories - a man who was a proven liar - and he still lost.
(So much for that 'independent' vote... ;>)
True, you even added one...now most FReepers would agree you're just an %$@(#
Good bye, FRiend.
Looks like your stated 'principles' are just as flexible as those of some presidential candidates!
;>)
...now most FReepers would agree you're just an %$@(#
OK - so now you're speaking for "most FReepers," as well as all of those 'independents?'
How on earth do you find the time?
;>)
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.