However, HSAT....
Did you notice that every last Republican in the House opposed Obama's latest statist overreach?
Every. Last. One.
In fact, Democrats joined Republicans in opposing the statist bill, not the reverse. Thus, it is the opposition to the bill that is bipartisan.
Just sayin'. You see, much as I truly do hate to admit it, there is a point to voting party-line, even when the party-guy is a stinker. (The younger me gapes in horror at the older, wiser me.)
Yes, they're unreliable, and they'll make you crazy sometimes. But you can't get around it:
- Individuals vote for Speaker of the House
- Majority determines who chairs committees and what gets done
- Sometimes voting the right way (RINO) is better than never voting the right way (most Dems)
Also think about this: we owe the current state of affairs, in part, to ideological purists who let the perfect become the enemy of the good, and handed the whole enchilada to the control of the worst.
Strategery. We need to get better at it.
Posts
26 comments:
Republican solidarity has been, to me anyway, by far the most surprising aspect of this whole ordeal. I apparently underestimated their weasel instincts, that told them opposition would be the only way to re-election, which was strong enough to overcome the lure of praise from the enemy.
Oh, I don't doubt you're right. My point isn't that they're good people. It is that they are occasionally useful.
And in this particular case they are FAR MORE USEFUL than all those perfect candidates who were not even running, but whose illusive image moved the naive to give victory to the worst candidates.
please tell me that we don't have to try and learn anything from this that applies to our chuch activities.
that would be too much right now.
Boy, nothing that I meant, Mike. Relax... unless someone else tries.
Excellent blog topic and comment, Dan. RINO's are occasionally useful. Third party (because they never win) and elected officials with a "D" by their name are NOT occasionally useful.
In this case, the D's were horribly damaging.
So CR, did you get an alarmed flutter when you saw the title?
Or not even, because you know me?
(c;
Nice, especially the bipartisan point. (See, Obama does bring America together!)
Pelosi was the one who compared this legislation to the Civil Rights Act, so here is the comparison on voting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Vote_totals
Looks like most Republicans had it right back then, too.
No alarmed flutter, because I know you. I know how much you loathe RINOs.
But here's where it is going to matter. Close to the election, I'm sure you'll get commentators who say, their candidate is not conservative or enough and they're just going to vote for Joe 3rd party.
In 2006, many conservatives wanted to "send a message" because some Republicans were not conservative enough. I hope they understand that the message they sent was Obamacare.
So, no I know you loathe RINOs. I'm not a big fan of them either. But If I lived in a state like Rhode Island without much options, I would vote for the RINOs.
Let's not forget this: Obamacare passed because democrats got the 60 vote majority they needed to pass the bill in the Senate before Christmas.
I hope this is a wake-up call. But it seems, just like in every generation we must contend for the gospel because it's always open to attack and perversion, it seems like we have to argue in every election that we have a two party system and we have to not vote for democrats and vote Republican.
I voted for a RINO in McCain.
But then again, it was better than the alternatives of:
(A) Voting for Obama
(B) Voting for a 3rd Party candidate
(C) Not voting at all.
...or, as I'd describe your options:
(A) Voting for Obama
(B) Voting for a 3rd Party candidate (see A)
(C) Not voting at all (see A)
It's important to understand that RINO's don't happen by accident. As I've gotten more involved in political campaigns in the past year, it has become clear that there are powerful people who choose who our candidates will be. The Republican Committees at the state and county levels are the ones who keep sending the RINO's to Congress - or, more often lately, the Democrats.
What we see (and dislike) in Michael Steele is what we see in these Committees:
1. It's all about the money. If a candidate can fill the GOP coffers, it puts him at the top of their list and immediately disqualifies all others.
2. An ideologue is dangerous - meaning a conservative Christian. They want centrists in office, not 'dangerous' Palin-types.
As much as I want to be involved and work for change, I'm becoming very cynical about the whole process and disgusted with the Republican party. I don't know if it can be fixed.
I took a poll of Free Republic denizens asking them to speculate on the general motive of House Republicans for their united front against ObamaCare.
For some reason, a plurality (39%) are leaning toward the charitable explanation that our GOP congressfolks genuinely believe the health care law would be bad for our country. Coming in a distant second (24%) is Election Year calculations.
Inexplicably, 10% believe the GOP congressfolks suddenly got religion on the constitutional limits on federal power. I put that option in there as a joke.
Term Limits. That's how to deal with Rinos. That's how to deal with all the problems in the U.S. Congress. Voters should demand term limits but most Americans are too stupid to do so. Part of the reason we're in the mess we're in.
Paula, then we AZians are definitely proving to be the exception.
Our senator is RINO-in-chief. Yet, the majority of conservative AZians, including the party folks, are getting behind JD Hayworth who is a "dangerous christian conservative type." He's the kind of guy who will get bull-headed, blow the whistle, and raise a stink over something that he knows is wrong: like illegal alien amnesty, obamunism, fiscal liberalism, etc. McCain SAID he stood up against those things, but his voting record shows him to be spineless except when campaigning. Guess who is going to win in the primaries in August. Hint hint: it ain't going to be Mr. RINO McCain.
DJP:
I've had this argument with many Christians and its gotten downright ugly. Basically, for voting for Rinos instead of a third party, I've been accused of having little faith in God because if we all followed our faith we'd elect a third party candidate. Of course, in response, I've argued they were just as responsible for Obama's election as the people who actually voted for Obama. What is your response to that?
Well, for us Californians, Paula is spot on. There is something truly broken about the electoral process when every single person running for either the Senate or Governorship is a paper millionaire, at least.
I'm hoping that the rise of social media and blogging will change that, though....
And I read your title and thought, "Ruh roh. Dan must've doubled up on the allergy meds this morning." ;)
Rachael,
Your "Ruh roh" REALLY made me laugh. Gosh, I wanna be a kid again.
Amen, Sir Aaron. Keep up the good work, bro in convincing these misguided voters.
@ Sir Brass - While I wouldn't call Hayworth a RINO, wouldn't it be fair to say he has some pretty powerful, wealthy backers? Therein lies a big part of the problem.....expected paybacks. The donors expect something in return.
Just this week we realized that the Ohio Republican Party sent out an expensive mailing to every voter in the district for their chosen, millionaire car dealer candidate (like he couldn't afford it?) It's a month before the primary in which there are 4 candidates, one who is a solid, viable conservative. So the conservative gets Scazzafava'd and we're most likely going to get a RINO. They did the same thing in the next district over.
Unless we get a last minute reprieve from say, Sarah Palin or Glen Beck, it doesn't look good. Unless of course, God has ordained it.
(as an aside, DS is ticked that it appears the millionaire RINO's highly paid web firm stole the code from the national debt clock on the website he and his friend designed for our candidate!)
I gonna make like a burnie at a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert when I say, "Dude, do the paper lazer gun analogy! EPIC! DO IT!!!!"
LOL! I had to rack my brain to get what you meant. OK, I'll go looking....
Just before the election of 2008, in the meta of this post on third-party voting, I made this reply to a third-party advocate:
So I might defend my family with a pistol that could mis-fire, or I could miss, or it could be taken from me - it's fraught with perils, true.
But you, Brian, oh no: You have made a drawing of a ray-gun that never jams, never misfires, and has a built in Disgronificator that only seeks out and kills Evil Men!
So yours is much better! And you'll bet your family's life on it!
Except it doesn't exist, so it will never, NEVER defend them!
But when a bad man breaks in, violates and harms them all while you wave your drawing at him, you can tell yourself that what happens next the sovereign will of God.
Right?
*****************
Then after it, in this post, I wrote this:
You Christians who did not vote or went third-party, you can tell yourselves you did otherwise. You didn't allow the attacker to assault that helpless victim. No, not you. You drew a picture of a devastating raygun, and waved it at him vigorously, yelling "Zap! Zap!", hoping he'd fall over.
Alas, he did not.
To both of you, I offer this: "Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper,
but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy" (Proverbs 28:13).
You want to keep insisting that you did the right thing? Can't help you. Won't try. After January 20, you go to the dumpsters behind abortion clinics and explain to the sad, tragic, forsaken contents just how deep and nuanced you are.
But repentant believers in Christ always find mercy and forgiveness. And that's all the happy I have for you.
I'm starting to think that 3rd party voters are akin to people who don't use doctors but instead pray for God to heal them.
CR:
I can't email you because you don't have your email listed on your profile! I was wondering if you lived in N. CA?
Paula, no it wouldn't be fair to say he has some very powerful, wealthy backers unless you know something about his backers that I don't.
We, the volunteers for his campaign, are numerous and we're totally unpaid. And we've been working hard to get material out to encourage people to donate. His campaign headquarters look like a rented office spot, nothing big and fancy like McCain's offices either.
Sure I'm sure some people with deep pockets are helping contribute, but he's not exactly being funded by a daddy warbucks. He doesn't have near the monetary power that McCain has, not even close.
This senate race is being campaigned for on a kind of grassroots level. Many of us supporting JD are also tea party folks (even though the AZ Tea Party will not officially support any particular candidate). We're SICK of RINOs and JD isn't one. If he turns out to be, we'll be happy to kick him out.
However, a RINO JD is not. And that's something we know. Every little accusation McCain has thrown out is about as twisted as the top 10 list on Redneck Atheism that Phil Johnson, et al has been doing recently on Pyro. Some glimmer of truth, maybe, but a very different story in reality.
The reason JD is doing so well is 1) people already know him from his former radio program. 2) people still remember his congressional days. 3) we're getting out and talking to people.
This campaign by JD is being supported by a bunch of volunteers and a handful of paid staff that are bringing their own individual skills to bear to help this guy oust the incumbent and get him to Washington D.C. to properly represent us.
If and when JD is elected Senator, it will be because the majority of voters voting in AZ want him as their representative, not because he simply spent enough money on ads. If he's election, it'll go to show that, unlike in baseball, you can't buy wins. When the populace is stirred, spending money on campaigning isn't enough: you've got to have something the people want, and we don't want what John McCain is selling. We DO, however, want what JD is selling.
Ok, I'm getting seriously annoyed with some of my Christian brethren. They are absolutely convinced that Obama won because of some secret method of hypnosis used during his speeches. This is one of the reasons why we are losing elections. While we are focused on some diversion the enemy flanks us.
The problem is not that Obama or any other politician are using secret methods to convince hordes of pliable people to vote for them. The problem is that a huge proportion of the people, including Christians, have come to believe that certain humanistic solutions, i.e. socialism, can solve man's problems. Christians have likewise been duped into thinking that some socialistic policies align perfectly with Scripture.
Instead of chasing ghosts, we need to emphasize more evangelism, better understanding of Scripture, and a plan to stem the tide while A and B take effect.
Post a Comment