Posted on 08/19/2008 4:43:34 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
In April of 2007, former CBS News reporter and six-time Emmy Award winner Bernard Goldberg's book, entitled "Crazies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right: How One Side Lost Its Mind and the Other Lost Its Nerve," was released. The book became an instant bestseller, and although its title was conjured up over a year ago, its premise is becoming increasingly apparent in this year's presidential election.
On the Democratic side, in the wake of one of the longest and most vicious primary battles in recent electoral history, Goldberg's argument has seemingly been substantiated. The contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was much more than a historic first in terms of a woman and an African American vying for the nomination of a major political party; rather, it signified a battle between the moderate wing of the party which generally supported Clinton, and the radical fringe of the party, which has grown in alarming numbers since 2000, and overwhelmingly supported Obama.
After her election to the Senate in 2000, Clinton was one of the most powerful Democrats in the Senate, and it was no secret that the former First Lady was preparing for her own White House run. After she declined to challenge President Bush's successful re-election campaign in 2004, when she could have easily won the Democratic nomination, it was a foregone conclusion that she would be the party's nominee in 2008.
In late 2007 the Republicans were gearing up for the race of the century, facing not only a staggering decline in popularity but the almost certain reality that their opponent would be the same woman that they have villianized for the past 15 years.
Earlier this year, however, it became apparent that seismic changes had occurred within the Democratic Party. Since President Bush's election in 2000, the party has moved farther and farther to the left, as the voices of mainstream Democrats have been drowned out by the radical fringe ideologies of newly formed organizations such as MoveOn.org and popular, outspoken blogs such as DailyKos. Conventional wisdom would dictate that a former First Lady turned Senator from New York would have little to no problem defeating a candidate just three years removed from the Illinois state legislature.
However, the political landscape has changed drastically in recent years. Eight years ago Joe Lieberman was the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate. Today, he is an Independent as well as an ardent supporter of John McCain. In a 2004 Time Magazine article entitled "Obama's Ascent," written just after his election to the United States Senate, Amanda Ripley praised Obama and spoke highly of his rise to the Senate, adding that, "Democrats debate whether he should run for president in 2012 or 2016." Not long ago, it seems that even those on the left would have conceded that the Illinois Senator would be grossly unqualified for the presidency in 2008. But it appears that Democrats have replaced common sense with extremism in selecting a candidate who makes Hillary Clinton seem moderate in comparison.
In contrast, and likely in the face of political reality, the Republicans seem to be going the opposite direction in this year's election. With President Bush's approval ratings falling toward the end of his term, the GOP has made a concerted effort to distance this year's candidates away from the president. And while the conservative base would have preferred Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson as the Republican presidential candidate this year, the eventual winner was a politically centrist John McCain. Since he wrapped up the GOP nomination back in March, however, McCain's campaign has been plagued by the lack of both sufficient media coverage and a message that effectively resonates with voters. Last month, on the same day Barack Obama spoke before hundreds of thousands of adoring spectators in Berlin, we saw McCain in the aisle of a grocery store in Pennsylvania. Any time images of Obama and McCain are juxtaposed on television, it isn't difficult to determine who comes out on top. McCain seems frail and uninspired when compared to an articulate and much younger politician.
With the loss of even more seats in the House and Senate a seemingly foregone conclusion for the Republicans this year, one would think that the GOP would put forth their best effort in the presidential race. However, Republican fundraising figures are down across the board, and Obama is predicted to outspend McCain three-to-one by November.
An Obama administration coupled with a supportive Democratic Congress would result in unforeseen changes for all Americans, and the Republicans don't seem to be putting up much of a fight. With only 11 weeks remaining until Election Day, Bernard Goldberg's year-old theory unfortunately appears to be correct.
You’ve been here long enough to know how I feel: Remember the immigration fight? Having said that, any RINO beats a communist, racist, corrupt Daley machine pol with absolutely NO experience running ANYTHING! I’m about the same age as Senator Obama and I’m more qualified to be president than he is, and I AM NOT AT ALL QUALIFIED!!
How did we get to the point that there’s a better than 50% chance we’ll be saying “President Obama” next year?!
One thing about “purists” is that the always lose. Sometimes sooner rather than later, but it is never “if” —they always lose.
When the choices are down to a socialist Republican or a communist Democrat everyone who truly cares has already lost.
You are looking for someone to place the blame upon. I have been a part of the Conservative political movement for forty years. I did what I could when I could to further Conservative political beliefs. The fact that the organization I once belonged to is now ridden with a cancerous internal disease is NOT of my doing. That is what I continually fought against.
If Obama becomes President the blame is much wider and much higher up the tree than I have ever been. The fact that the Republican Party leaders have chosen to default on their Oath of Office is not of my doing. Should you be looking in the mirror?
I noticed that you haven’t made any entries on your profile page. Would you care to tell us what country, province or state and city you reside in?
“As I said, just one time I would really like to hear someone refusing to vote for one candidate acknowledging that their refusal helps the other guy get elected.”
I’ll admit it. You also need to admit that not voting for Obama, like most of us here, helps McCain. And that’s more help than he deserves.
“62% of American prefer a third choice “
http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/2926/53/
They ought to forget about regular voting machines and make them all braille. This election is truly the blind leading the blind.
McCain Supporters Farthest Off the Mark
WASHINGTON (March 31, 2007) – A new poll using neutral language finds that primary and caucus voters have little knowledge of candidates’ immigration positions. The results also show that voters often do not share their candidate’s position.
Of McCain voters, 35 percent mistakenly thought he favored enforcement that would cause illegals to return home, another 10 percent thought he wanted mass deportations, and 21 percent didn’t know his position.
* Voters often held different positions from the candidate they supported. Only 31 percent of McCain voters had the same immigration position as he does. For Clinton voters, 45 percent shared her position; 61 percent of Obama voters shared his position.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2008/voter_release_08.html
Then I commend you.
And I ask that you speak up when others who refuse to vote for McCain blame (fill-in-the-blank -— the MSM, the GOP, the RNC, blah blah blah -— in other words, anyone not including themselves) for, thereby, helping Obambi get elected.
Of course I readily admit that not voting for Obambi helps McCain. That’s integral to my whole point. It’s also ONE of the reasons I am voting for McCain: to STOP Obambi. You and I apparently disagree on whether that is good or bad for the country, but I do readily admit it.
People have different views on who should and should not be president. That’s normal. What’s not normal, in terms of logic, is claiming that one’s refusal to vote for one candidate *in no way* facilitates the election of the other candidate.
So, hat’s off to you. Thanks.
Suit yourself.
It’s not a question of blame, it’s a question of responsibility.
You, as a voter, have available to you a political act that you can decide to use as a VOTE or as a PROTEST.
Proceed accordingly, that’s all.
If Obama becomes President the blame is much wider and much higher up the tree than I have ever been. The fact that the Republican Party leaders have chosen to default on their Oath of Office is not of my doing.
I see. Some do get discouraged and quit when they feel that the election of the President of the United States is above their paygrade as a citizen.
My condolences on being victimized by history.
Well. Even if we are all doomed and victims of Them, I'm still going to use my vote as a vote, not a protest, and try to stop what I see as a great threat to the nation.
The fact that the choice put to me is not of my own making is immaterial to the fact that I still can (and, in my view, am responsible) for making that choice.
But that's just my take on it.
AuntB wrote: I’ll admit it. You also need to admit that not voting for Obama, like most of us here, helps McCain.
AuntB, a few more thoughts on your post. (And this time a copy to B4, as you had done.)
Here's the thing:
1. We agree that not voting for Obambi helps McCain get elected.
But--
2. Voting for McCain also helps McCain get elected (so no change in outcome there) AND it helps defeatT Obambi, by cancelling out someone else's vote for Obambi.
Either way (not voting for Obambi or voting for McCain), a person is helping McCain get elected. But there is only way to ALSO help Obambi get defeated. That is by voting for McCain.
Of course, as I said previously, the converse is true:
1. Not voting for McCain helps Obambi get elected.
2. Voting for Obambi helps Obambi get elected (so no change in outcome there) AND it helps defeat McCain, by cancelling out someone else's vote for McCain.
My only point is this:
Those who refuse to vote for McCain, whatever their reasons and no matter how legitimate their reasons are, are helping Obambi get elected and doing nothing to help defeat him.
Moreover, unless that person votes for Obambi, he is helping McCain get elected anyway.
So, it's really not logical to claim that one is refusing to vote for McCain because one doesn't want to help him get elected. The only way to "not help" McCain get elected is to vote for Obambi. The only way to "not help" Obambi get elected is to vote for McCain.
If a person refusing to vote for McCain is honest about that result and comfortable with it, so be it.
But to somehow attempt to claim that, by voting for neither McCain or Obambi, one is absolved from responsibility for the outcome of the election is disingenuous.
The fact is it is impossible to simply wash one's hands of the election. So long as a person is eligible to vote, how one uses his vote (either as a vote or as a protest) does, in fact, have an impact on the election that is traceable to that individual.
Again, if a person is honest with himself that, by refusing to vote for McCain, he helps Obambi get elected and he does nothing to help defeat Obambi, and the person is comfortable with that, so be it.
If a person truly wants to stop McCain, he should vote for Obambi.
If a person truly wants to stop Obambi, he should vote for McCain.
A person who votes for neither effectively does nothing to help either candidate lose, but does help the winner win.
Remember the "Don't blame me: I voted for Bush" bumper stickers that were popular in the 'Toon years?
There's a reason there were no "Don't blame me: I didn't vote" stickers.
Bottom line: Unless you vote for Obambi, you can't avoid helping McCain. So the question is, do you think you should do something to help defeat Obambi? Would that be a good thing for the nation or not?
“Those who refuse to vote for McCain, whatever their reasons and no matter how legitimate their reasons are, are helping Obambi get elected and doing nothing to help defeat him.”
Fine, maybe you’d be happy if I just vote Obama. One traitor is as good as the next.
Hyperbole much?
The fact is we made it through eight years of Clinton and four years of Carter with an even more liberal Democrat Congress. President Obama won't be so bad, specifically because it will force the GOP to get back to its conservative roots. If Obama wins, we get back the House and Senate in 2010, and grab enough state legislatures to ensure we draw the districts after the 2010 census.
A McCain win, however, is the worst case scenario. It's the death penalty for conservatism because it teaches Republicans the way to win is by embracing amnesty, "climate change" and the left wing of the party.
The the Supreme Court canard? We can obstruct any nominee by Obama made before 2010. After 2010, we'll probably control Congress.
McCain will NOT appoint a pro-life nominee because they'll want to appoint someone who will get through the Democrat Congress. And as we've seen with McCain-Feingold and everything else he's proposed, McCain LOVES working with Democrats to get something left-of-center through Congress.
A vote for McCain is a vote to kill conservatism.
It’s not about what makes me happy.
I would like it, however, if you would address my actual post.
Do you agree that the only way to help defeat Obambi is to vote for McCain?
If so, do you think helping to defeat Obambi is worth a try for the sake of the nation or not?
Would YOU be happy voting for Obambi?
If so, by all means, go ahead.
Would YOU be happy helping Obambi get elected?
If so, then don't vote for John McCain.
Either way, you're helping Obambi get elected. If you're okay with that, so be it.
This is a stupid conversation, is what this is. I’m not going to vote for John McCain. Never, ever, ain’t gonna happen. All this is a big farce and a gigantic waste of time. Go convince someone to vote for McCain who hasn’t followed him since he stepped off that plane in ‘74 and doesn’t know how bad he sucks. Your time is wasted on me.
As I said, the logical conclusion to your train of thought of course is, If I don’t vote for Obama, I’m supporting McCain. And that’s as far as I can go to help put Johnny in office.
“”Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” - John Quincy Adams”
lol you're awesome AuntB!!
Tell that to the founding fathers.
Without a doubt you are a lawyer and a woman.
You don’t seem to be able to comprehend that I do not want either one of them. I won’t vote for a socialist nor will I vote for a communist. Voting for either one of them violates the oath I took when I joined the Navy; ... to protect America from all enemies, foreign and domestic. There is no expiration date on that oath, so stop asking me to violate it!
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.