I announced this the other day.
Nicki Fellenzer sums up her impressions and includes a recording of the entire thing.
She's right in that Gov. Blunt, who has been fairly good on guns, really didn't...uh...bluntly answer a few of the questions--mine, for instance, where I asked what incentive Republicans would have to ever change if they can go against our interests yet gun owners vote for them anyway. And I agree it will be unfair to point the finger at gun owners if the Republicans fail--if you extend that to its logical conclusion, it would also be our fault for not working for the McCain campaign, or donating money.
Bryan Pick, who makes his case in comments, points out the political realities we're facing. I understand where he's coming from and am grateful that he put this together and gave me an opportunity to participate. Also, it was nice of Chris at The Liberty Papers to record the conference call and make it available to us.
That said, my position on the election remains: I recommend voting your informed conscience, meaning taking into consideration what's at stake and realizing whatever choice you make will have an impact.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Whatever choice I make will have an impact? My little tiny single vote, which I thought lost among a sea of millions, will have an impact? MY choice, that I raised from a pup, lavished with love and care and hugged it and petted it and called it "George" will have an impact???
Wow.
This truly is a great country!
But wait.
Won't some proBama knucklehead's choice also have an impact? Will its impact cancel out the impact of my choice? Or worse, will both those choices impact together, leaving a heap of flaming wreckage where once there bloomed a pair of sprightly choices?
This is why I stay out of politics. Too violent for my tastes.
Yeah, it will--because I qualified it as being an informed choice. Uninformed citizens are what got us to this point.
And not voting has an impact. Maybe if that became a movement, it would expose the fraud of "majority rule" for what it is.
I know our individual votes are washed out by the masses--I am never disappointed the morning after to find my choices went down in flames.
But regardless, whatever you do will have an impact. My recommendation is that we base our decision on having intelligently thought things through--if for no other reason than to be able to square our actions/inaction with our own consciences and to our loved ones. I think that's a moral obligation.
As has been noted elsewhere, never has your vote meant so little as regards the direction the nation will take after the election. There simply are no good, pro-liberty choices on the tickets of the 2 major parties. The presence of your vote changes nothing but perhaps, the speed at which we approach destruction, if given to either of the major party candidates.
Perhaps threatening the partys' existences by placing your vote elsewhere where they can see you voted, just not for either of them, will make wish to woo back their faithful who have lost faith.
Just a thought, not a recommendation, just a thought. Something to examine. Hell, I don't know what I am going to do yet, so I can't recommend to others. I only know I'm not voting for either of these anti-liberty pricks on the major party tickets.
Don't Vote.
Don't legitimize the system.
Don't make them feel like they actually deserve the authority.
Don't waste your time.
IF, however, you still feel you MUST vote, even knowing better, write in my name.
Hi David,
The answer I would give to the question you asked would be that if a politician gets so bad on an issue that the consequences of voting for him are worse than those of not voting for him, then voters should withhold their support.
Gov. Blunt appears to believe that if you compare the consequences of a McCain presidency with the consequences of an Obama presidency, McCain comes out way ahead.
"And I agree it will be unfair to point the finger at gun owners if the Republicans fail--if you extend that to its logical conclusion, it would also be our fault for not working for the McCain campaign, or donating money."
IIRC, the claim was specifically that if McCain fails, then those who chose not to vote for him bear a part of the responsibility for the consequences. For reasons I explained at Nicki's place, I think that's not unreasonable.
It comes down to how much worse an Obama presidency (and all that that entails) is likely to be than a McCain presidency, over the short and long terms. I see Supreme Court replacements, shortly after Heller--a very limited victory--was decided 5-4. I see an all-Dem federal government for at least two years, probably more. And I think about the long-term damage that they're likely to cause in that time.
Then I think about the limited effect of Republicans electing one man who had one of his Big Ideas about "closing the gun-show loophole," and I just don't see that doing nearly as much damage, even over the long term.
That said, McCain made a choice to have the positions on guns that he has; if those are flatly unpalatable to the voters he needs to win, even when running against Obama-Biden with a strong Dem majority in both houses of Congress, then a lot of the responsibility lies with him, too. And some lies with the other parts of the coalition, and the party, for nominating someone who alienated too many voters.
My opinion is more fleshed-out over at Nicki's place, for anyone who wants to follow David's link.
-=-=-=-
the_chef:
Politicians and their staffs do not seem to care whether 80% of the country votes, or 50%, or 30%. They care that they get a larger percentage than anyone else.
Even though Bill Clinton received only received a small percentage of the eligible population's vote in 1992, there was virtually no effective opposition based on that fact. His legitimacy, such as it is, was basically unaffected.
When you choose not to vote, there is no signal to those in power that you chose not to vote as a protest. As far as they are concerned, you might as well be one of those who didn't vote out of apathy.
That's not entirely your fault: you don't have the option to vote strictly against a candidate, or for None of the Above. (I wish you did!)
But voting is about signaling, and in a day when almost everyone is familiar with the cliche of voting "for the lesser of two evils," the primary signal of your vote is preference rather than approval. If you feel the need to remind people of that fact after you step out from the polling booth, feel free, but your choosing not to vote isn't keeping them awake at night. You're not even a part of their calculations; they care about people they can sway, and the people who put their opponents in power.
However, if voting participation drops low enough, it might be easier to convince the people (if not the parasites) that the entire system is a fraud. We outnumber them; never let them forget it.
Having put my ass on the line for my country, and having damn near lost it(four times), I voted yesterday, because it's my vote. I know all about the cancel-out,doesn't count, yada yada yada. I paid for it, it's mine. Most don't pay for it the same way I did, or they get their vote with very little difficulty, but it's theirs nonetheless. And I use the term "pay for it" in a spiritual sense, knowing full well, you don't really pay. Almost 7,000 Marines died on Iwo Jima. I like to think they died for a cause worth using once in a while. Sometimes, I can't sleep, thinking about all the people who died,were wounded,captured and tortured,or just dissappeared, doing what had to be done to keep this country alive. I owe them that much. III.
Post a Comment