On teaching Republicans a lesson, not
Tony Blankley has an amusing take on Republicans who aren't going to vote to teach Republicans a lesson:
. . . . Apparently, these anticipated conservative non-voters are annoyed with Republican imperfection. They are disheartened, disappointed, disillusioned, distempered, dismal -- and thus plan to dis the party that better advances conservative principles in government.
They appear to have fallen victim to the false syllogism: 1) Something must be done; 2) not voting is something; therefore, 3) I will not vote.
Of course the fallacy of the syllogism is that the second category could be anything. For example, number two could as well read "eating dog excrement is something." I rather suspect that they will feel about the same afterward, whether they chose the non-voting option or the scatological one. They are both equally illogical -- and repulsive -- and would deserve the moniker, "Stupid."
Here are some tell-tale signs of the sort of person who would vote (or not vote) to cause the election of a party which would act to defeat every value and interest he holds dear (merely because the party that will at least try to advance most of those issues has not done as well as he might have hoped):
1) When offered by a car dealer 25 percent off on a car, he insists on paying the full factory recommended retail sticker price -- because he is damned if he will accept 25 percent when he deserves 30 percent off.
2) When the prettiest cheerleader asks the nerd to take her to the prom, he turns her down -- just because he can.
3) When stopped for doing 70 in a 65 zone, he tells the trooper that's not possible because he had the cruise control set on 90 -- he just resents being falsely charged.
4) When diagnosed with a serious illness, he promptly cancels his medical insurance -- in order to save the cost of premium payments to help pay for the upcoming hospital stay.
A conservative would have to be just that stupid to stay home on Nov. 7. . . .
The funny thing is that conservatives who are upset with the Republicans in congress will get even less of what they want if the Democrats win.
They appear to have fallen victim to the false syllogism: 1) Something must be done; 2) not voting is something; therefore, 3) I will not vote.
Of course the fallacy of the syllogism is that the second category could be anything. For example, number two could as well read "eating dog excrement is something." I rather suspect that they will feel about the same afterward, whether they chose the non-voting option or the scatological one. They are both equally illogical -- and repulsive -- and would deserve the moniker, "Stupid."
Here are some tell-tale signs of the sort of person who would vote (or not vote) to cause the election of a party which would act to defeat every value and interest he holds dear (merely because the party that will at least try to advance most of those issues has not done as well as he might have hoped):
1) When offered by a car dealer 25 percent off on a car, he insists on paying the full factory recommended retail sticker price -- because he is damned if he will accept 25 percent when he deserves 30 percent off.
2) When the prettiest cheerleader asks the nerd to take her to the prom, he turns her down -- just because he can.
3) When stopped for doing 70 in a 65 zone, he tells the trooper that's not possible because he had the cruise control set on 90 -- he just resents being falsely charged.
4) When diagnosed with a serious illness, he promptly cancels his medical insurance -- in order to save the cost of premium payments to help pay for the upcoming hospital stay.
A conservative would have to be just that stupid to stay home on Nov. 7. . . .
The funny thing is that conservatives who are upset with the Republicans in congress will get even less of what they want if the Democrats win.
posted by John Lott at 7:23 PM
6 Comments:
Without knowing the facts I suspect some conservative voters may harbor a subconscious preference for Charlie Schumer. Schumer clearly supported all of the president's tactics for battling terrorists. But, there are some differences: conservatives believe we need our gun rights to protect ourselves from terrorists - Schumer (a famous gun grabber) believes we need to eliminate all guns to protect ourselves from terrorists.
Schumer thinks terrorists could simultaneously attack major airports using shoulder fired rocket launchers - he also believes fifty caliper sniper rifles are the weapon of choice for terrorists and wants all of them banned. Schumer is a democrat from NY.
New York, Chicago and LA have senators and members of congress who are famous mostly for their desire to ban gun possession in the US. They are not famous for not supporting the president's war in Iraq because they all have supported it. The only gun grabber who has never supported the president's war in Iraq is Ted Kennedy. The reason we are in Iraq is because the whole country (including liberal gun bashers) supported it by supporting Bush - don't let gun bashers "rewrite history" by saying they never did.
NewYork has Charlie Schumer, Hillary and more; Chicago has Richard Durbin and Barak Obama; California has House minority leader Nancy Pelosi teamed up with Dianne Feinstein from San Francisco. These gun grabbers are all from locations that can generate massive amounts of liberal voters.
If conservatives stay home or vote democrat it will be the end of the famous victories for the NRA that have occurred during the Bush presidency.
I agree, thanks. There seem to be some people who would rather have nothing than half or two-thirds of a loaf. I think that the examples in the op-ed by Blankley illustrate this perfectly.
Speaking as someone who votes Democrat more often than not, voted for Baradnik in 2004, but has voted for Republicans before, I can only say that no party has a right to my vote.
My vote has to be earned, it's not an automatic lock. A candidate cannot do whatever they please and still expect me to vote for them simply because they have a certain letter after their name.
Nobody OWES their vote to any specific party. And when a party is screwing up, how do you voice your displeasure or send a message that you think they are on the wrong track if you vote for them? That's the POINT of democratic elections.
And what motivation does a candidate or party have to change their course if they know they can count on your vote no matter what they do?
Dear Guav:
Thanks very much for the note. I agree completely "that no party has a right to my vote." The point here though is that the perfect can be the enemy of the good. Conservatives who might feel that taxes were not cut enough or that spending increased too fast or that regulations have increased too much or that not enough is being done on illegal immigration and want to punish Republicans will find that the Democrats will move even further in the wrong direction.
Place the gun issue aside and think about what it will be like with a democrat gun-grabbing majority in the congress (it won't be that much different on all other issues). Bush will be gone for sure. We will leave Iraq for sure - it don't matter who gets elected president. But I can almost (not completely) guarantee if republicans lose control of the congress we will lose control over gun rights AND be out of Iraq.
After Bush is gone we will leave Iraq - it won't matter who gets the presidency. If democrats control the congress gunners lose their rights because the gun grabbing democrat leadership will control the House.
As much as I want women to have the right to choose, I also want my gun rights because they allow me some protection for my life and for my family; plus, gun grabbers will take away other freedoms too.
I can't vote for an extremist who opposes all abortion but supports gun rights - but this election isn't about that - it's about pro-gun politicians controlling the congress and allowing them and the NRA to finish what they have been trying to do for a long time. The NRA has made possible some of the most important gun legislation ever. This election isn't about Iraq to me (we're gonna leave Iraq, one way or another) it's about gun rights and mine and your freedom.
Gunners want republicans to have the most power to influence who gets to the Supreme Court and who controls the House. For that to happen we need pro gun politicians (most are republicans) to control the congress. This would be the worst time to put the brakes on the NRA.
"Remember New Orleans"
For me, it's a no-brainer, but then I tend to be a pragmatist not an ideologue, though sometimes I have to back into a decision by "ruling things out" when there are no attractive options.
So in this case, I began by asking myself: "What do I NOT want to have happen?"
And what I do NOT want to happen is to awaken at the crack of dawn election-day-plus-one to find congressional power in the hands of Pelosi, Kennedy, Reid, Kerry, Rangle, Durbin, Rockefeller, Schumer, Levin, Boxer, Harmon etc.
If you think things are bad as they are, consider the alternative.
Don't get me wrong . . . I despair at the performance of the Republicans and would like to sitck it to them as much as the next guy. But to indulge that emotion, I'd be working against what I think are, objectively, the best interests of the country (think judges . . .).
Brian
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home