T-Ball game at the GOP, not baseball--posted by Tony Garcia on 6/08/2006
I was reading a post over at Water Cooler Wisdom. Two things he mentions that warrant a response. First is the oft repeated comment that conservatives who are considering staying home in November 2006 are akin to "taking their ball home" to "teach a lesson" to the GOP.
I do not believe in voting AGAINST something. That is the summary of the GOP strategy. Yes, our candidate is not perfect but vote against the possibility of Dem Majority/Governor.
Just like I was saying with the Anyone-but-Bush people...you only know what you are against and have no idea what then you are for.
AS AN EXAMPLE:
By "sucking it up" and voting for Pawlenty you are not voting for small government (as he has proven the past 2 years) but Democrat-lite aka smaller government than the Democrats. That is not a platform that conservatives should be supporting.
It is not "taking the ball and going home". It is expecting to find a baseball game and going home because all there is at the park is t-ball.
Vote for something. What are you voting for? Conservativism? Small government? Then Pawlenty may not be the best candidate...and you should consider that possibility through November instead of dismissing all other possibilities. Instead what you are finding is the GOP settling for a pro-growing-government GOP incumbent...and doing/saying anything to get him elected.
The other item is put in the form of a rhetorical question. (Rhetorical because I doubt anything that does not agree with WCW's 'support Pawlenty at all costs' will be given thoughtful consideration. Instead I bet it will all be dismissed with a closed mind similar to certain KvM co-authors.)
If anyone can explain how [teaching the GOP a lesson] makes one iota of sense, I'd like to hear it. I see it as a completely selfish exercise.I find it interesting that YOUR ideology is not selfish but those the differ from yours is selfish. The same could be said of your advocating people vote for a candidate that has betrayed their principles of policy...that it is selfish of you that you are asking them to support YOUR ideology at the expense of your own.
Why neither is individually selfish or harmful takes deeper thinking. So those who are not ready...go away now. The real deal is we all have our own ideologies. Some people believe that their party is the most important alter to bow at and have shown up in spades over the past several months attacking personally anyone who dissents from the crowned candidates of their respective parties.
Some people are single issue people. Narrow-minded I would say, but that is their perrogative. To some it is abortion (pro-abortion or anti-abortion). To some it is life (which would include death penalty, euthenasia, etc). To some it is taxes.
Others have a larger guiding principle. Small (not smaller-than) Government, Social Government, Federalism, Nationalism...you get the idea.
It is the responsibility of each person to seek the candidate(s) that best represent them with 2 guiding questions. 1) Which candidate best represents their principle more and 2) Is victory more important than supporting that principle or is that principle more important than victory? For partisans it is a very easy set of questions to answer. The person with the correct letter behind the name is all that matters.
In the macro sense I understand the need for a majority...and this means a larger tent. You need liberal Republicans in the cities, you need to keep the fiscal conservatives happy, etc, etc. I understand that the single most important vote a legislative body makes is the one for Majority Leader/Speaker. Everything else follows that. It does not mean whipping everyone into the same philosophy. We do not all have to be church-going, born again, life-at-conception, hate-Democrat-mongering, party-over-principle people to make a majority. (That by the way is the direction my former BPOU has been heading for a few years and I cannot be a part of that). You need many different types with differing philosophies...not many clones of each other. Or worse, what seems to be growing: some clones of each other and many gutless people who are afraid to stand up for their beliefs out of fear of being attacked.
But there is also an individual responsibility to each person. Yes, a conservative majority is important. But I cannot pull the lever for someone I believe to have less character than myself. I may not pull the lever for someone who is far from me on my important issues in action though close to my positions in words.
And we all have that responsibility. If it is selfishness for one then it is selfishness for all. I propose we meet halfway. The fiscal conservatives got behind the other candidate for November 2002...to satisfy YOUR side's selfishness. Now it is your turn to do the same. Get behind the other candidates to satisfy fiscal conservatives' selfishness for a change.