If (when?) Obama is elected, by my estimation there’s an at least even chance that the newly-reconstructed FCC will reverse course and attempt to apply the New Fairness Doctrine to blogs.
If (when?) it happens, I’ll break that law. I will break it with all due malice and in full knowledge of the possible consequences. I’ll shout “Fire Obama!” in a crowded theater. And then, for the first time ever, I’ll ask for reader donations. Because I’ll going to need them, lots of them, to pay for the lawyers.
Read the whole thing. However, as a call to arms, I can see how it might leave some confused, because Steve doesn’t plan to vote for John McCain, either.
Frankly, I thought the call to arms to oppose Obama was just more of the hammer-tactics the RNC has been using: “Vote for Shit Sandwich McCain, or the Debbil Obama will Destroy the Universe!!!”
But it’s not that. It’s something darker and deeper. Steve obviously thinks an Obama election with solid Dem majorities in both houses of congress is inevitable. So do I. But he’s not advocating voting for McCain. Neither do I. What this is is Steve’s personal Declaration of Independence.
If you’re able to recall that document in this degraded age, you might recall these words:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Steve is announcing beforehand - indeed, issuing a warning beforehand - that he will resist the tyranny of an Obama government, if it behaves in a tyrannical manner.
I, of course, being older and much more of a hothead than Steve is, not only agree, but am willing to push it even further. I want to do more than simply resist Obama and the Democrats’ usurpations of liberty and ever-further extension of tyranny. I want to destroy the Democrat party, and I intend to use all methods consonant with the unalienable rights of a free man in order to do so.
But I’m with Steve as far as he wants to go: I, too, will simply refuse to obey any “Fairness Doctrine” that would infringe upon my unalienable right of freedom of expression. I will do more, as well, but this is neither the time nor the place to go into the details of any further efforts I might be considering.
Hothead? Revolutionary? The best men our land ever produced - who, in turn, produced our nation - were no more, and no less. How can I aspire to anything less than the American Dream they created, and two centuries of tawdry, power-gorged politicians have done everything in their power to destroy?
Enough is enough. This far, and no farther.
Submit to Stumbled Upon!
Bill –
Thanks to the miracle of scheduled posting, my link here won’t go up for a few more hours.
So let me say here, now, beforehand, that you GET IT, even better than I — the guy who wrote the words you linked to.
If worst happens there’s the Ayers Doctrine.
“Repent, Harlequin!” said the Ticktockman.
“Get stuffed!” the Harlequin replied, sneering.
I will vote for McCain/Palin even though it appears impossible to stop the Obama-zombies. I am not a republican and support such liberal postions as abortion.
My vote is one of the last legal ways I have left to oppose the spread of the soft acceptance of totalitarianism with its siblings of sexism, racism and elitism.
Those who do not vote against Obama by voting for McCain in this two party system, in my view, end up supporting Obama.
Standing alone may be noble but without allies you will just be picked off one by one by one. Little greek city-states falling before the organized masses of Rome.
Hey, but you will have your honor. That won’t help anything but your pride. Gotta keep the pride. Nothing more important than that for some I suppose.
Me? If Obama wins, I will figure out how to fake being an O’zombie and try to bore from within the system.
You’re pretty confused. I don’t think you’re anything like a principled conservative or a libertarian, either. In fact, I think you’re what Limbaugh calls a “seminar” commenter.
Bore from within? And you call Steve and me Quixotic?
You aren’t the only one, Bill, who feels this way. Regardless of what our government says, or what laws it sees fit to pass, I will not alter my blogging habits, I will not alter my speaking habits and I damned sure will not give my children over to the government as servants into Barry’s mandatory “volunteerism”.
Well, this is what happens when folks start applying ‘conservative purity’ litmus tests to candidates and withdraw support from candidates that admittedly may not be ideal, but are far better than the liberal, in this case, radical liberal candidate on the other side of the race.
Some folks are waiting for the Second Coming of Reagan, it seems, but fail to work to prevent an idealogical heir to Lenin from being elected instead, and then end up in the foolish position of having to ‘declare war’ against the new liberal administration because for some reason, they couldn’t bring themselves to support a moderate conservative.
That is an example of Tromping on Your Foreskin.
Right. And your approach guarantees that you take socialism’s foreskin up the poop-chute with grease, instead of dry.
Moron. How the hell do you think we got to this pass in the first place?
Bend over. McCain’s got a present for you.
Oh, I might be confused and I don’t listen to Rush (it is forbidden around here and note that I am not a conservative in real sense) but I do understand that if someone opposed to Obama refuses to vote for McCain, that non-vote is effectively support for Obama.
Might as well godwin this: I view it as someone refusing to fight Hitler because that would mean supporting Stalin. I can understand the point but, in my opinion, that position ends up supporting something one opposes.
As for my method if Obama wins: Assuming the Republicans crash and burn this time around I will be forced to work with the people in power. Thus concealing my political opposition will allow me to interact with Dem’s without them instantly rejecting my opinion because I am coming from a different viewpoint. I will then be able to argue points with them without them accusing me of being a hater of some sort.
I don’t think that you are ‘Quixotic’ for planning to openly oppose Obama post-election (I think that is great); rather I think your refusal to vote for McCain in this cycle is ‘Quixotic.’
This assumes that you do think Obama is worse than McCain, of course.
Your logic is weird. Why isn’t a non-vote for McCain an effective vote of support for Ralph Nader or Bob Barr?
And no, for a variety of reasons, I don’t think Obama is especially worse than McCain. In some ways, I think he is better - he will inspire active opposition that McCain, pushing the exact same policies, might be able to avoid.
And where, precisely, are you, that listening to Rush is forbidden?
“Why isn’t a non-vote for McCain an effective vote of support for Ralph Nader or Bob Barr? ”
In my opinion, those (and other) minor parties have no chance in winning even a single state so voting for one of them has the same real-world effect as voting for whoever wins: McCain or Obama. Since Obama is currently leading that would make a minor party vote favor Obama (and switch that if McCain leads).
Oh. I did not know that you saw no effective difference between Obama and McCain. In that case, your non-vote for McCain makes sense to me. I see enough of a difference to support McCain.
As for listening to Rush. Heh, I like to work and where I work there is no Rush allowed. I don’t make the rules, I just like being able to cling bitterly to my paycheck.
I see. So in your world, the tyranny of the two-party system is for now and evermore, eternal.
Thanks, but no thanks.
And, frankly, your logic is still screwy. A non-vote for either of the two majors is not a vote for either of them. It is a vote for whomever you are voting for. Your silliness -
is just that: silliness. Relativist nonsense. I have to look at who is leading on a day-to-day basis to see who I am “voting for” in the event I choose not to vote for either?
Ridiculous.
I don’t vote for people I don’t want to see elected. Not any more.
If a candidate wants my vote, he can offer programs and policies that appeal to me. I will no longer be locked into your silly dogma that chains me into voting for candidates I cannot stand, so that (on whatever day I happen to vote) I am not voting “for” the one I can’t stand the most.
“I see. So in your world, the tyranny of the two-party system is for now and evermore, eternal.
Thanks, but no thanks.”
I never said ‘eternal’ nor meant to imply it. Interesting that you jumped to that assumption. But the two party system is the only game in town this cycle. Right now. Today. Not some hoped for future. Pretending that it is not so is like denying terrorism is a real problem so actions that enhance terrorism’s threats really are nothing to worry about.
In my opinion, that is ridiculous.
As for my “Relativist nonsense”: I don’t claim that this is a morally correct position (whatever that is), just that it reflects the actual effect of one’s vote on the outcome of the election. So if you are voting for a minor party then yes, the practical effect of your minor party vote is to support whoever the big party winner is.
However noble you may feel in not giving your support to either major party, the real world does not care one whit about your beliefs and only notices the actual effect of your vote.
Prove it. I’m serious. You think you’re being logical, but I want you to offer some sort of mathematical proof that however I choose to vote has precisely that effect.
You can’t. You know why? Because you aren’t taking into account any other votes. in fact, you have absolutely no clue whatsoever what the effect of any single vote in the overall election is.
But you think you sound quite wise. Actually, you don’t.
I can cite one - and only one - example of one vote determining an election. President Kennedy used to cite a mayoral election in the early ’50’s in which the resulting margin was less than twenty votes. That triggered a mandatory final hand count. The winner won by one vote. JFK would mention that the new mayor was bedeviled by citizens telling him “Be nice to me Mayor - my vote put you in office.” The mayor later remarked that if everyone who said that to him had actually voted for him, he’d have won in a landslide.
That was a direct election of a local official, in a city of 120,000. A one vote margin hadn’t happened before even though the city was incorporated in 1803, and it hasn’t happened since.
At the national level, one vote means nothing. Bill and I live in California, where Obama has the electoral votes locked up. In a swing state, a vote is more valuable, but even there, one vote alone isn’t going to be the difference.
I’m voting, but only because there are a couple other issues on the ballot where I want to add my vote to the total, for however little it’s worth. One is to take reapportionment away from the legislature, and the other is to overturn a local ordinance banning booze at the beach. In neither will I assume that my vote alone will make the difference.
Random is trying to justify the proposition that any vote not for McCain is a vote for Obama.
This is patently ridiculous. The only way I can vote for Obama is to do so. And when I do that, unlike casting my vote for anybody else, my vote for Obama will raise his total vote by one. Should I vote for Barr, as I did, it does not affect Obama’s vote total at all.
His point, which he believes he oh so cleverly makes, is that by voting for anybody other than McCain, I will increase by one any margin that Obama enjoys over McCain.
He then tosses in that the converse would be true if McCain were victorious.
Here is the logical fallacy in this dog’s breakfast of an “argument.”
My vote cannot affect the margin between Obama and McCain “depending.” The other variables in making that determination are simply too large. In the end, nobody ever votes “against” anybody. They either vote for somebody, or they don’t vote.
Random would do better - and be far more logical - in trying to convince those of the half of the electorate who don’t vote, but who would vote for McCain if they did vote - to do so.
And though Random may sneer at what he calls my “nobility,” I’m not being noble at all. I’m voting for somebody I actually want to vote for - or at least don’t feel dirty after doing so.
If everybody did that, we might have a much better political system, too.
Me: “…just that it reflects the actual effect of one’s vote on the outcome of the election. So if you are voting for a minor party then yes, the practical effect of your minor party vote is to support whoever the big party winner is.”
Bill Q: “Prove it. I’m serious. You think you’re being logical, but I want you to offer some sort of mathematical proof that however I choose to vote has precisely that effect.
You can’t. You know why? Because you aren’t taking into account any other votes. in fact, you have absolutely no clue whatsoever what the effect of any single vote in the overall election is. ”
“““““““““““““““““
Proof (mathematical is beyond me but then I am but a happy moron):
Outcome of election has 2 end states: Obama or McCain wins.
People’s individual vote totals determine which end state occurs (simplifying by ignoring electoral college, congress dealing with ties, etc.).
Options available to voters: not vote, chose to vote for an unavailable goal state (neither O or M winning), or vote for one of the two available goal states.
A person who votes minor party for president (in this particular election cycle) has the real world effect of not adding or subtracting 1 vote to the total that leads to whichever available goal state actually occurs (O or M wins).
So whoever won the election benefited from either avoiding the negative vote against him or benefited from the positive vote for him. I would agree that any individual vote provides only a tiny, but measurable, effect in such a big election.
““
As for your later post: “Random is trying to justify the proposition that any vote not for McCain is a vote for Obama.” Well, no. It’s a vote for whoever wins which is unknowable at this point.
And I am not trying to ‘sneer’ at your minor party vote although I am a rude person. Sorry about that. I don’t think that there are viable 3rd party options existing at national levels. In my opinion minor parties should concentrate on local elections first, but eh, what can you do? They are politicians after all.
Good luck.
My apologies, Stephen. It wasn’t scheduled posting. The Akismet filter decided to throw both of those in the spam bucket, and I didn’t see them to release them until just now. I’ve added you to the whitelist, so it shouldn’t happen again.
I’m with Steve. The only way they can have my blog (and my threes of readers) is when they pry my cold, dead fingers from the keyboard!
And I’m glad it came from Steven, since the notion of storming the gates sounds ever so much better with a good gin and tonic (with a twist, of course) in hand.
Guess what, random, ol’ buddy? You just blew your own argument away - if there is no addition or subtraction to the total that leads to either of your “available goal states,” then minor-party votes - however they are cast - have no “real world” effect on the outcome, either way.
Talk about painting yourself into a corner…
Doesn’t matter - if the only “real world” outcome possible is that either McCain or Obama wins (and, according to your framing of the situation, that’s true), then minor-party votes can have no useful impact, either way, on the outcome. Therefore, as Bill stated, a vote for some other (i.e., minor-party, or even write-in) candidate is just that - a vote for the other candidate, nothing else. Period, full stop.
Aaaand, following your line of reasoning, that “tiny, but measurable effect” has no bearing whatsoever on the outcome…
Then again - there’s always that possibility (however slight) that a whole bunch of other folks might decide to do the same thing.
Purely your opinion - and, as has been noted at other times in other places, opinions are like assholes; just about everybody’s got one.
Of course, Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, et.al. are probably hoping that you’re wrong about that.
Personally, I stopped listening to that “A vote for a minor-party candidate/a write-in/anyone but McCain or Obama is a wasted vote” scurf a long time ago - I intend to vote for a candidate who I really would want to see win the office. I won’t vote for someone just because he (or she) is the least offensive major-party candidate.
That really would be “wasting” my vote - as well as my time, and the cost of mailing in my absent ballot or driving/walking/biking to the polls.