Posted on 11/10/2008 12:33:31 PM PST by BlueStateBlues
If Barr's votes had gone to Palin and her running mate they would have won North Carolina and Indiana. North Carolina: Obama 49.9%, Palin 49.5%, Barr 0.6$ Indiana Obama 49.9%, Palin 49%, Barr 1.1% This would have been more important in a closer election, but it caught my interest when I looked the figures up.
I’m going to post my comment to your vanity as another vanity in the news forum. Watch for it.
This comes after calling libertarians "losertarians"? "Physician, heal thyself..."
Maybe we should have tried even if it meant locking up the Congress. Then maybe government needed to keep going even if we couldn't get everything that needed to be done.
I never said that.
Even if I had, that is not a personal attack. I hope you can see the difference between calling a set of political ideas dumb and telling a person they are too stupid to understand your brilliant points, which is what I was responding to.
So, physician, backatcha.
PV: As I've said before, I don't think it could have. Just like Gore couldn't get out from under Clinton, the Republican candidate, no matter who was chosen, would have had a very difficult time getting out from under Bush.
Then you agree with me, I take it, that focusing on McCain's alleged "failures" in not being conservative enough, in not sufficiently articulating the limited government message, etc., is neither illuminating nor helpful.
My essential point here is that too often the "if we only had the right candidate who said the right things" focus leads to thinking such a candidate magically would be elected. It's much more complicated than that, and failure to accept that fact is both delusional and a severe hindrance to success in the future.
Agreed.
It wasn't the LP's fault that we couldn't pull in enough votes, your inane little temper tantrum aside, it was our fault for losing the message. McCain and his Amnesty bill, bailout bills, "green" energy garbage, wishy-washy on tax policy, etc... THAT lost us the election. I voted for Palin, but she was the only reason I could hold my nose and do so for the ticket.
The LP isn't right on all issues. Especially since they've allowed the Truthers to infest them. But the one lesson the GOP could learn from them is: NEVER COMPROMISE ON PRINCIPLES.
The Dems haven't compromised one wit and they trounced us. They didn't let things like ethics, rules, or fairplay stop them either.
Having people like you on the forum with your accusations that are patently stupid doesn't help things at all. Wanna scapegoat for losing? Look in the mirror.
They do not, and cannot, win elections, as I went to great length to point out, even including historical examples and data and constitutional parameters.
Of course, you can think of people who vote for *known losers* any way you think appropriate.
All that said, I freely admit I have no respect for a person who deliberately wastes his vote on a *known loser*.
I also have no respect for someone who says they are conservative, but yet needed Sarah Palin to make him get up and vote against the disaster that is Obama and all his administration stands for.
Someone who is a conservative, yet didn't have enough sense to decide to vote against Obama until Sarah Palin was in the picture has an enormous amount of gall claiming it was the lack of a conservative message that cost us the election.
Obama's message was loud and clear, or should have been.
Did that not matter to you at all?
From your post, apparently not. Don't act shocked at people's assessment of that fact.
My whole point is that, at least for conservatives, WHAT OBAMA BELIEVES AND WHAT HE INTENDS TO DO TO THE COUNTRY should have been sufficient to lead them to vote for the only other candidate who was NOT a *known loser,* i.e., the other non-third party candidate, which was the only available way to defeat Obama.
Oh, and you, too, can't resist the personal attack---describing my political disagreement with you as "your inane little temper tantrum." Again, I hope you can see the difference between stating the indisputable fact that third party presidential candidates are losers and your personal attack. And: Sorry. I'm cool as a cucumber; I simply know what I conclude is egregious political malpractice.
The GOP was a Third Party. Without protectionist ballot access and finance laws, there'd probably be more of them in office too.
I also have no respect for someone who says they are conservative, but yet needed Sarah Palin to make him get up and vote against the disaster that is Obama and all his administration stands for.
And I have no use for any moron who thinks we should vote for a RINO "just because". The voting "Middle" isn't going to give a tin sh*t either way. They saw McCain as the weak old fool he obviously is and voted for "something else". Go blame them for not supporting your pet RINO.
You want to turn the GOP into Democrat-lite, you'll lose. Like this recent election proves. People like you wouldn't listen to hard liners like me early on so we ended up with a half-assed RINO leading the ticket instead of someone we could all easily get behind.
Don't blame us for your lack of principles.
I would bet that the overwhelming majority of those Barr voters were R-voters who were sickened by everything Bush and McCain have done. Those voters will come around when we nominate good conservatives. What I'm far more concerned about is all the Rs that crossed over and voted for Barack Obama.
I never said vote for anyone "just because." That you view my argument that way is just more proof that you are looking at your vote myopically, as simply about pulling the lever FOR one guy, rather than about the impact of your vote on the OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION and, therefore, on the country.
Voting against Obama (by voting for the only candidate with a viable chance to defeat him) is so far from voting "just because" that it's criminal that some who call themselves conservative still confuse the two.
Voting for a candidate in order to try to defeat a known Marxist and radical is hardly, sir, voting for someone "just because."
I'd say voting in such a way as to try to stop the disaster that is manifestly about to be visited upon our nation is not only pretty important, but also a moral obligation. Just MHO. From your posts, claiming there was no reason to vote for McCain except "just because," I take it you don't agree with that assessment.
I have said it is amazing and tremendously sad that, despite all that *Obama* stands for and will pursue, some conservatives still focused instead and exclusively on whether they liked the *other guy* enough to vote for him or not.
That's just a little weird.
Oh, well. There's a reason there are never "don't blame me, I didn't vote" bumperstickers out there. It's indisputable that those who refused to vote for McCain are partially responsible for helping Obama get elected. Therefore, they helped facilitate everything his administration is going to do to this country.
P.S. ---
Your statement that "the GOP was a Third Party" exactly proves my point, which I have repeated over and over again, but will do so again here:
For a third party to ever be politically viable, it must *become one of the two major parties in America* by *displacing* one of the two major parties or by *transforming* one of the two major parties into a completely new party.
Surely you agree that that's what happened with the GOP. It is now, isn't it, *one of the TWO major political parties* in America?
Are any of the third parties out there today showing any signs, whatsoever, of becoming as viable as either of the TWO major parties?
And stop with the argument about ballot access and finance laws. Yes, those have an effect. But the fact remains: the reason these parties aren't growing and becoming more powerful is that FEW SUPPORT THEM (even when their ideas are agreed with). Hells Bells, even within the Republican primaries, FEW supported the more conservative candidates running.
Yes, there are structural reasons for that in addition to "idea" reasons. But that doesn't change the reality. A third party movement does not START at the presidential ballot box. It ENDS there. IOW, it is not a top-down phenomenon, nor can it be.
Socialists, for example, didn't (and couldn't) win as a third party, even though every year for decades on end a few protest voters (using the same rationales you have proffered) waste their votes on socialist party candidates. But socialists did work to gain power within the Rat party, and they are now well on their way to *displacing* the old Democrat party with, what is in essence and fact, a Socialist party (under whatever rubric).
As that party-withiin-the-party gains power within the party, then and only then do the socialists have the chance to elect a committed redistributionist (shorthand: emerging socialist) president. Which they just did.
Want to do something effective? Stop wasting your vote. Stop helping to hand the country over to the worst candidate. Start working within a major party to transform it.
That is all.
Stop wasting your vote...
Since I voted for McCain, I think you may actually be right on this one. Very well, agreed. No more RINO's. They are a waste of my vote...
The Republican Party was never as such a third party, in the sense that the Populist Party of the 1890s or the Progressive Party of the early 1900s were. It was also not a vehicle for a single politician like George Wallace or Ross Perot. The Whig Party, the former second party, had collapsed in 1852 over the slavery issue. One fragment, the American or Know Nothing Party, became the chief Congressional opposition to the Democrats. The other fragment became the Republican Party. The Americans and Republicans were rival second parties in 1856; the Republican Presidential candidate received more electoral and popular votes. By 1860, they were the second party. The Democrats split between Northern and Southern wings. Most of the former Whigs or Know Nothings in the North aligned with the Republicans, while the Southern Whigs supported the Constitutional Union Party, which carried Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee.
The most plausible scenario for the possible rise of a third party would be the collapse of the Republicans. However, the GOP did not fall apart after electoral disasters like 1936 and 1964, which were far more devastating than 2008. However, Obama's leftist background and record may result in such a radical Presidency, making FDR and LBJ look like libertarians in comparison. If that is the case, historical precedence may go by the wayside.
I do not, and you can quote me on this later, think that either the LP or Constitution Parties have what it takes to take over as Premier Conservative/Constitutionalist Party for us. Both Parties have too much bad bagage behind them, even if both have large chunks of "the Answer" in their respective Platforms.
A couple of saliant points jump out from your posts. I think these further demonstrate how today's typical "third party" voter gets off track.
Most importantly, is the fact that today a "third party" is not viewed *functionally* as a PARTY at all, but rather, as you term it, "a vehicle for a single politician."
This is another way of stating my point that a new, viable PARTY cannot form simply by finding one candidate and pushing him. A true party apparatus has to emerge first.
A voter who thinks by voting for Ron Paul, for example, (or Ross Perot or George Wallace, in your examples), that he is *helping to CREATE a viable new political party* is simply wrong. There first has to be an actual party that approximates, even if not in size, the apparatus of a major party.
Secondly, you point out that the GOP emerged *because one of the two major political parties had collapsed.* This is exactly what I have been pointing out has to happen for a "third party" to become viable: it must displace or transform from within *one of the TWO major parties.*
In my view, the most plausible scenario for the possible rise of a third party is not the outright collapse of the GOP, but its total transformation from within (just as I gave the example of the old Democrat party being transformed, essentially, into a socialist party). No one can be President without a major party from which to draw his administration and without party affiliation with Congress.
That's why I take most opportunities to push back at the folks who claim they are doing something effective for the country by wasting their vote on a *known [predictable] loser.*
In the end, though, it doesn't matter whether it occurs by displacement (in the event the major party collapses) or internal transformation. But it sure as hell's bells won't happen by folks wasting their vote on presidential candidates who do not represent more than a shell party.
As for this:
However, Obama's leftist background and record may result in such a radical Presidency, making FDR and LBJ look like libertarians in comparison. If that is the case, historical precedence may go by the wayside.
In my view, Obama's leftist background and record (which, in shorthand, I have described as Marxist) should have been sufficient already to at least get conservatives off their butt to vote against him by voting for McCain. Nevertheless, as you can see in this very thread, there are those who still feel no shame or compunction about trumpeting their refusal to vote against Obama, which I view as high political malfeasance.
In short, I wish I could take hope in the idea that Obama will be so bad that maybe people will vote against him in the future, but if even people smart enough to call themselves conservatives couldn't figure that out in THIS election, it's not looking good for the future.
*****************
Amen.
As noted, I voted for McCain. He lost. I even predicted he'd lose back during the Primaries. If the LP had run Badnarik again, he would have had my vote. Barr was just a bad choice from the word "go".
The "apparatus" is in place. The GOP is just using it wrong.
It remains to be seen whether that's what's going to happen now. Are the people who gave Obama $600,000,000 really aiming at a "forcible redistribution of wealth at every fundamental level?" All parties want to go on winning elections, but do you really think that we won't have the opportunity to vote Obama and his party out if a majority of us want to?
Vice “left-liberal establishment statist” for “Marxist” and you don’t end up at a different destination in terms of practical impact of Obama’s views on American politics and national life.
Sure, changing the label doesn't change the substance. Call Pol Pot a liberal or a social democrat and you don't end up with a different record for that dictator. What's important, though, is whether Obama and Pol Pot or Obama and Lenin are aiming at the same thing. An earlier generation wouldn't have seriously said that FDR and Stalin were pursuing the same goal. People are getting sloppy lately.
What’s silly is insisting on hyper-technicalities that, in this context, do nothing but honor distinctions without a difference.
What's silly is being the boy who cried "Wolf!" Disregard distinctions and Obama fans who hear him called a Marxist often enough may come to find Marxism attractive. Call real differences "technicalities" and you don't have any defense when your opponents do the same to you.
This, I agree with. With some caveats.
That said: Look. I know this is a public forum and it's visited by the public, but I'm a longtime freeper who comes here to talk to fellow freepers. In other words, I consider my audience.
Speaking among conservatives, I don't at all see that using "Marxist" as a shorthand to indicate Obama's redistributionist views, his willingness to use government coercion to expand redistributionist programs, his intent to create a civilian "security" force (for whatever purpose?), and the historically predicable potential type-of-government outcome of all that over time.
As for your point that this may cause Obama's supporters to learn to love Marxism, that is exactly what I have been arguing is the problem---many of them already do (because, as throughout history, they are still in the "what's in it for me" stage).
Obama's clearly socialist tendencies---his own words that he wants to "spread the wealth" through taxing success---were known and apparently okay with many Americans, including with some conservatives here who, regardless, still couldn't find it within themselves to get up and vote against him by voting for McCain.
In short, many of Obama's supporters already find socialism attractive. Naming names---calling it socialism and identifying that as a political system that leads to communism, which then leads to the murder of millions of innocents---doesn't cause them to love socialism more, but it might serve as a warning for those who have not succumbed to the gimme lifestyle.
but do you really think that we won't have the opportunity to vote Obama and his party out if a majority of us want to?
What would ever give you the idea that I thought that? Of course we will have the opportunity to vote Obama and his party out in four years. Just because Obama is committed to Marxist-like views doesn't mean Marxism will be established in this country in the next twenty minutes. However, there is an inexorable march that is very difficult to turn back once the tipping point is reached (when that occurs varies).
It is not wrong to warn where a road may, and often does, lead.
Demographers report that already by 2012, more than 50% of Americans will be on the dole. There is a great percentage of children born directly into poverty/the welfare state. Add Obama's policies into the picture. Once more than 50% of citizens are dependent upon the government, I'm sure you agree that makes the task of turning back the march of socialism even less popular.
So, sure, we'll have the right to vote for the foreseeable future. But how many people getting free money from the government will even consider voting for the guy who says "limited government" is the way to go?
As for "real differences" versus "hyper-technicalities": The fact that the "redistribution of wealth on every fundamental level" might personally affect people's socioeconomic status in various ways---the rich one way, the poor another, the uberwealthy yet another---is a fact without a distinction. I am speaking of "every fundamental level" in the political/economic system, not stating "every citizen will be adversely affected by this redistribution."
Moreover, who cares whether, as you state, the "people who gave Obama $600M are really aiming at a 'forcible redistribution of wealth at every fundamental level'"? They knew, or had the opportunity to know, that this is what Obama is about, and they voted for him anyway. If someone cares about redistribution at all, and voted for Obama, it's probable that voter is all FOR redistribution no matter what its impact on the nation.
Finally, your point that what's important here is to discern Obama's intent ("what he is aiming at"), rather than evaluating the historical destination that his ideas often, if not always, lead to (especially given the demongraphics I discussed above) is, in my judgment, wrong.
Even if you are correct that Obama is "not aiming" at establishing Marxism, one has to politely ask "so what?" I am sure you agree that there exists such a thing as "unintended consequences." And ideas have consequences that are not controlled by the person who espouses the ideas. Ideas can create facts that, essentially, then have a life of their own.
"Innocently," "naively," "hopefully," "with warm and fuzzies," establishing redistributionist schemes that, by dint of fate, are unsustainable and, therefore, lead to civil unrest or increased State confiscation and coercion in attempts to sustain the programs as long as possible is just as destructive as if that result was intended from the first moment.
This isn't FDR's world (and he screwed things up bad enough). This President is both exponentially more and less powerful. Obama is playing with fire and I intend to state so in whatever terms have an inkling of a chance of communicating the stakes here.
That includes evaluating and NAMING the historical destination that the ideas Obama holds often, if not always, leads to.
You asked me a question and I responded to your question. Please read your “Mail” and respond to my question. Thank you.
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.