I do not, however, agree with the message the end. As far as I know, there is no reason to impeach Obama.
Until there's a change of heart among the ignorant, deluded masses who either (A) voted for him, or (B) enabled his election by abstaining or going third party, nothing has really changed. It wasn't a coup. Obama was elected by fools. Unrepentant fools wouldn't want nor support a better, truly visionary, remotely-Constitutional, pro-American president.
Posts
34 comments:
Powerful speaker, eh? We had one at the same time; she's much missed.
Dan,
I'm still not clear on "B." If you lived in a solidly blue state like CA, where McCain had no chance of winning, why is it absolutely wrong to vote for a third party candidate as a means of signaling a party like the GOP to be serious about nominating truly conservative candidates? I can fully appreciate why such a vote in a "purple" state might be seen as helping to get Obama elected, but it seems not to be a universal truth. Thanks for any follow-up.
Dan! We have one degree of separation. I had Dr. Sailhamer for Hebrew as well. I also had the privilege of taking him for OT exegesis and a class on the Pentateuch. That basically means that, if you ever read anything I write on the Pentateuch or hear anything I preach about the OT, you have to play like you don't know that I stole everything from Dr. Sailhamer. <.<
P.S. I had Dr. Sailhamer for second year Hebrew. Which means I went, "Well...I kind of wasted my time in my first year class on all that verb tense stuff. Sheesh."
Amazing how Reagan's words are practically prophetic.
Did anyone catch the Ft. Hood memorial service yesterday? The cat calls and cheering when the Obamas appeared were shamefully inappropriate at such a solemn moment. They masses were cheering for their American Idol.
I must say though, that there is a certain amount of near-worship of Reagan on the other side. DS and I recently attended a Leadership Institute class and it was clear that Reagan was the ideal with this group (with a side of Goldwater). We truly enjoyed the class and learned a great deal, but as Christians, we ALL have to be careful not to put our faith in a man or a system.
As an aside, Morton Blackwell, founder of the LI, has a fantastic Read to Lead book list that gives a great overview of conservative political values. You'll be super smart if you read even half of them! (Challies' next project?)
It's pretty simple really, any vote not against the O is helping him.
Open primaries is why we had McCain, conservatives split the vote while Independents and cross-over spoiler Dems put McCain over them.
Transcribed from the Reagan clip (my apologies for any errors):
“We must overcome something the present administration has cooked up--a new and all together indigestible economic stew: One part inflation, one part high unemployment, one part recession, one part runaway taxes, one part deficit spending, seasoned with an energy crisis. It’s an economic stew that has turned the national stomach.
I can only say--WOW. How did he know what would happen 30 years later??
Jack,
Was the only vote against Obama a McCain vote? I fail to see how voting for McCain in a solidly blue state did anything more than a vote for a third party candidate.
Reagan was imperfect, Susan, but what you're seeing is that Reagan had a clue as to what America is about.
The current president does not.
Andy, we've been there and done that more than once, I think.
Here's one for-instance.
I know, Dan. Hope you could sense the sarcasm in my previous comment. :/
5% of NY-23 voted for the name with the "R" next to it, and the Democrat won by 4. I hope I'm wrong, but I expect to see a lot more like that in 2010.
I'm not sure what your point is, James. That district had (A) no primary and (B) a viable third party.
NO state in the union had a viable third-party presidential candidate in 2008.
Happy Veterans' Day
Julie
Dan,
I acknowledge we've discussed this before, but if you'll please bear with me, I hope I can draw out a place where I'd still appreciate a bit more clarification on your view. Concerning your arguments at the provided link we agree almost completely on #1-4. #5 seems to be were we part company. We all want to make a difference, but it *appears* your vote for McCain in CA was just as absurdly useless as the third party votes you deride. McCain lost by 3 million votes, more than 10x the number of third party voters. And those numbers were not a surprise by any stretch of the imagination. A vote for McCain was going to do nothing more in the fight against abortion than a vote for Baldwin in CA. At least, I fail to see how, and so I'd appreciate you describing what the precise difference is in terms of the politics of the possible. Or as you put it, how was a vote for McCain anything other than defending your home with an imaginary phaser?
You describe third party votes as mere gestures, but don't you think NY 23 Republicans will not nominate another DeeDee DIABLO after what happened in the recent election? Were third party votes there utterly meaningless?
Let me be clear. I think a vote for McCain in a purple state was absolutely necessary for the reasons you've previously cited. I also understand the vehemence against those who directly voted for Obama. I don't understand grouping all third party voters into what seems like the same group as pro-Obama folks.
I believe that I already did anticipate and answer it.
Neither party sees third-party voters as anything other than the silly, Quixotic, self-referential irrelevancies they are. They are not serious participants, have no positive impact, and contributed to Obama's margin of popular victory over the only viable pro-life candidate.
/channel Yogi Berra>Hmmm...this sort of reminds me of the discussion on how we could reach out to Hispanics with the gospel. Someone told us we needed to get some Hispanics and then we'd be able to reach out to them better. So we're still stuck with white people for now.
It's kind of the same with third party candidates. I mean, seriously, you can't get elected if you don't get the votes. And you shouldn't get voted for if you aren't electable./channel Yogi Berra>
Anyways, I wasted my vote on McCain. Turns out he wasn't electable either.
I am sort of confused now. I'm going back to studying the Bible. I find the doctrines therein far less maddening than politics.
Except he was electable. He was one of only two individuals in America who were electable last November.
The pity is, he wasn't elected.
Now, I hope that makes a "teachable moment" for America... but my hopes ain't too high.
Do you know there are still professed Christians desperately rationalizing their support for Obama, and actually trashing Sarah Palin — who on her dumbest day would have made a far more Constitution-friendly president than the current 0ccupant?
So yeah, I'm very optimistic about the Kingdom of God. Not so much about America.
Interesting video, although I really don't get the faux "contrast" with Obama. The point would have been better made by including some footage of him actually speaking the banalities he's so loved for, and seeing the stark difference in worldview and gravitas between Reagan and O. Or at least connecting the dots between what Reagan was warning against, and what Obama is promoting - a direct matchup.
If you buy a car on a whim and later have buyers remorse, you can always trade it and maybe be out a few bucks. But when you elect a president on not much more than emotion, and then have voters remorse, you're stuck for at least a term, and potentially a forever hangover from the damage done.
Dan,
Was John McCain realistically electable in CA, NY, MA, IL, or any of the other lockstep blue states in the 2008 election? You say yes, but doesn't reality says otherwise. One could give McCain every third party vote (including the Greens) x 10 and he still loses. Under what "politics of the possible" scenario does McCain get CA electoral votes in 2008?
I couldn't agree more. President Obama was elected by fools, but as you say, there is no reason to impeach Obama.
I don't really see a change of heart in the near future especially among the ignorant, that's why they're ignorant. And unless there is a revival, there simply won't be a change heart.
But, here is what is more likely. In the end, most Americans vote their pocket book. I don't believe it was a change of heart that voted for President Reagan. Certainly it was the case for some, but the reality, and sadly, it was the economy. People don't care about abortion or other issues, it's the economy, their own pocket books and other selfish issues.
If the economy sucks in 2012 like it does today, then it's likely a Republican will win in 2012. The question is, will we put a good Republican.
Andy,
I'm sure you mean well, but it's really frustrating to read you beat a dead horse again.
You're probably too young to remember that President Reagan won the 1984 election with 49 states. It's guys like you, that if you were in great numbers in NJ, would lose the election for Christie and re-elect Corzine as Governor.
What if Reagan or Goldwater would have thought like you did and gone third party?
Third parties do absolutely nothing except maybe this: elect democrats.
Republicans have an opportunity, here. We can be negative like you and say, I'm in a blue state, I'm just going to vote third party. Or we can take advantage or capitalize on the fact that that things are real bad, thanks to President Obama. Reagan capitalized on the situation and took over the Republican party, repopulated it with true conservatives and took it away from the Rockefeller blue-blood country club types that ruled the party mid-70s.
With all due respect, brother, if Reagan had your same attitude, he would have run third party, and atrocities like partial birth abortion would be the law of the land today. You're pretty young still. I was very idealistic when I was your age, so I think you'll see the light sooner or later, but it would be better sooner. Try to see the bigger picture, here.
Andy Dollahite said...
...
"Under what "politics of the possible" scenario does McCain get CA electoral votes in 2008?
"
Um, you completely overlooked the ones who didn't turn out to vote!
OK, ya'll got me all worked up now! DH is on a trip w/our church to MO and I have WAY too much time on my hands tonight, so you're ALL gonna pay!...
Isn't the bigger battle the civil war within the Republican party? The whole discussion about 3rd party candidates would probably be irrelevant if the Republicans merely stuck to their party platform and required their candidates to stick to it (good luck finding it - it's been scrubbed from the GOP website).
Electing Michael Steele as the party chief was a step in the WRONG direction. I stumbled across this interesting e-mail today from Morton Blackwell (influential GOP mover-and-shaker) to potential GOP Chair candidates.
It shows the internal conflicts going on in the GOP over faithfulness to the party platform and support of conservative candidates. Blackwell grills the potential Chairs with 37 questions:
4. Have you read the 2008 Republican National Platform? Do you agree with it?
5. In particular, do you agree with and fully support the 2008 pro-life plank, which is essentially the same language as was in the Platforms of 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004?
6. The feminists’ attack on marriage was one major reason why unmarried women voted for Sen. Obama over Sen. McCain by a staggering 70% to 29%.
Do you agree that Republicans must support marriage and cut off the many incentives to divorce and unmarried motherhood that
now exist in federal law and spending?...
8. The liberal media are trying to sell two contradictory messages about the 2008 elections.
First, that 52% of the popular vote is an overwhelming mandate for Barak Obama to move America massively to the left.
Second, that the 52% of the vote cast in California for Proposition 8, the Marriage Amendment, was such a squeaker that the victory has no long-term significance.
In fact, exit polls on November 4 showed that hispanics and blacks in California voted overwhelmingly for Proposition 8.
This indicates an opening for the Republican Party, which can attract large numbers of currently Democratic-leaning minorities on social issues which already are high priorities for most people who usually vote Republican.
As RNC chairman, what would you do to take advantage of this opening to broaden the base of the Republican Party? ...
27. Many people decide to join the Republican Party because they believe it is the best vehicle to advance their conservative principles. Then they see their party leaders and party committees supporting liberal or content-free Republican incumbents for re- nomination.
Or they see their party leaders or party committees supporting non-conservatives for nomination in open seats, giving as a reason that a more conservative candidate “can’t win.”
Or in general elections they see their party leaders or party staff disproportionately directing party resources to non- conservative party nominees rather than to conservative party nominees.
What would you do as RNC chairman that would assure conservatives that such objectionable practices will not happen on your watch?
Following Blackwell's advice instead of following the oh-so-cute Megan McCains of the party would go a long way toward making the GOP a viable party again, maybe again making it a true conservative party that conservatives in good conscience could vote for, rather than settle for.
CR,
Please don't make me out to be someone I'm not. I've said repeatedly that I understand a vote for McCain in a purple state was the right thing to do. My exact words were "Let me be clear. I think a vote for McCain in a purple state was absolutely necessary for the reasons you've previously cited. Your NJ and Reagan examples completely ignore such statements.
Furthermore, Reagan and McCain are obviously not the same people, and the circumstances of their elections were vastly different. I gladly would have voted for Reagan - twice. I'm not a pie-in-the-sky, idealistic third party voter at all times. I voted for Bush - twice. If Palin runs in 2012, I could see voting for her, so stop alluding to folks like me as ignorant and making assumptions about my political persuasion when you really know next to nothing about me. I try to take voting seriously, and I think good Christians can vote differently without dishonoring Christ. (Of course that doesn't mean I support in any way a vote positively for Obama.)
However, McCain had no conceivable chance of winning CA's electoral votes in the 2008 election (except in Andrew's world where 3 million nonvoters who would have exclusively voted GOP actually show up). Talk about 1984 all you want, but 2008 wasn't 1984, and Reagan wasn't on the ballot. Yet, Dan continues to argue that his vote for McCain meant something while someone who voted third party in CA is the equivalent of a person voting positively for Obama. That type of moral equivalence bothers me because it completely ignores the many distinctions that exist between pro-Obama and some third-party voters. Dan has previously dismissed all third party votes as pipedreams, but in an unexpected comment on this thread Dan actually said there is such a thing as a "viable" third party candidate. I find this odd since he argued in his other posts that "all third-party candidates will accomplish NOTHING of what they promise," and "All third-party candidates are immature, fools, and/or liars."
Which brings up the question, who would you have voted for in NY 23? I've seen you argue previously the need to protect raw numbers for the GOP (e.g. the Arlen Specter defection), so would DeeDee have had your vote to keep GOP numbers from slipping? Or would you have voted third party?
I keep making a fuss (admittedly - and after this I'll leave it be) about this issue because it seems uncharitable to lump pro-Obama supporters and folks like me together. My understanding is that you and Dan think I'm ignorant, deluded, unrepentant, etc. Like you I'm committed to ending abortion, among many other things, and I'm willing to use incrementalism to get there. Unlike you, I didn't think a vote for McCain was the only acceptable Christian vote. Blessings on your week.
Andy,
I'm not making out you to be someone you're not. I'm specifically addressing the naivety position of voting third party in virtually any circumstance. (The NY-23 position is unique in that the Republican dropped out and also there was no primary there).
You are the one that has ignored some statements the example in NJ being one of them. NJ is the bluest of blue states in the Union and Christie defied all odds. Not only did he barely win, he won by 5%.
And I don't think it's uncharitable to link foolish and sometimes godless and selfish voters who voted for President Obama with those that voted third party. Sorry, I don't see the uncharitableness.
With regards to some of us thinking your ignorant and deluded and unrepentant. Frankly, I don't know how you voted and I don't care. I don't even know what state you live in. I'm not making this personal, I'm arguing against the position you are putting forth. It is a bad position. It is a grossly wrong position and if enough guys like yourself argue for this position we'll have another Florida 2000 and next time it may not work in our favor but against us. I'll give you the last word.
CR,
Since you offered the last word (thanks Mr. O'Reilly) I'll offer some clarifying comments.
You said to me - "It's guys like you, that if you were in great numbers in NJ, would lose the election for Christie and re-elect Corzine as Governor."
Wrong. I would have voted for Christie.
You said to me - "What if Reagan or Goldwater would have thought like you did and gone third party?"
Wrong. Irrelevant hypothetical because I've never suggested they should.
You said to me - "Third parties do absolutely nothing except maybe this: elect democrats."
Agreed. Of course by using the qualifier "except maybe" you leave open the possibility they do something in some cases, and that is my point.
You said to me - "I'm not making out you to be someone you're not. I'm specifically addressing the naivety position of voting third party in virtually any circumstance."
Great. Of course I never argued that voting third party in *virtually any cirmcumstance* was a good idea, so why address such comments to me?
You said to me - "And I don't think it's uncharitable to link foolish and sometimes godless and selfish voters who voted for President Obama with those that voted third party. Sorry, I don't see the uncharitableness."
Frustrating. How can someone as brilliant as you not discern the difference between a person voting positively in support of Obama, and a Christian who hates Obama's policies but after pondering his situation over time decides there are merits to a third party vote when a McCain vote would do practically nothing in his state in the 2008 election? Those two people have very different motives, and very different patterns of thinking, and yet you blur the differences and consider them both the same.
You said - "I'm not making this personal."
Are you kidding me? Your arguments are directed at real flesh and blood people like me, so please don't pretend this is only a mental exercise.
Thanks for the last word. If there is a next time on something else, you can have it.
Andy,
You asked the question, suggesting that a McCain victory was impossible in California. So, the argument goes, true conservatives should make self-referential gestures instead of seeking to accomplish something (stop the O!) on Election Day.
Look, there are 17.5 million registered voters in CA. Obama received 7,342,729 votes.
There were certainly enough registered voters in CA who opposed to Obama, but stayed home on Election Day because of mixed feelings about McCain. I suppose they “made a statement” to the Republican Party by staying home.
Just because it is challenging, difficult, and unlikely for a GOP pro-lifer to win an election in CA, does not make it impossible. Even if the probability of a McCain victory was a meager 5%, McCain still had a 10 trillion-fold better chance of winning than did Bob Barr (probability=0.00000%).
You and I can “make a statement” on a street corner or at the local rotary club, any day of the week. But on Election Day, please try to actually DO something!
Andy said: "Was the only vote against Obama a McCain vote?"
Yes, but don't feel too bad, you'll get another chance to vote against Obama. Don't waste it this time. You'll feel better. Really.
So, Andy D, in sum:
As I see it, every one of your questions has been answered, some of them more than once.
We're already past my normal tolerance of wheel-spinning, so let's do move on.
Dan,
I sent a response to CR this morning that said had been saved but required approval. His last statement to me contained errors about my position - again. One easy one to refute is the NJ example. He's simply wrong about me because I would have voted for Christie, as I would have voted for Reagan, as I voted for Bush, and as I would consider voting for Palin. I'm not sure if you chose not to allow it to be posted - fair enough if that's the case, it's your blog. Have a nice day.
Sorry, Andy; I thought I had approved that. I have now.
And my response was written after having read and, I thought, approved it.
Dan,
Thanks for posting my response to CR. I'll now be done as you have indicated you want no more wheel spinning. Good day.
My real beef is with supposed Christians who voted for Obama. I expect the heathen to vote irrationally, illogically, and selfishly. As far as I'm concerned, Christians who voted for Obama need to be forced to repent or treated like the immoral brother.
With the third party bit, I'd make this observation. No third party will win as long as potential third party voters are split between the Republicans and said third party. Everyone has got to get in one wagon or the other if we're going to win elections.
Post a Comment