Posted by
Andrews on Tuesday, July 08, 2008 12:07:46 PM
I am tired of hearing about sending a message in the general election. The various schemes I have heard are incredibly naive, and most hinge on the various parties drawing the correct inference, which is simply not likely.
Let us look at the various proposals.
First, and most popular, is to vote Barr to "send a message" to the Republicans that we don't like McCain. This is just bizarre. Because McCain has been insufficiently conservative, we are voting for a cut-and-run candidate? And what message will the Republican party get when Barr siphons off votes and Obama wins? First, that a liberal Democrat won, so they should move
LEFT not right. Second that an anti-war candidate won, so they should get weaker on defense.
Great message to send: Move left and forget about defense. I am sure that would make a much better Republican party in 2012. That is, if they get a message at all. If Barr gets less than 10%, most likely the party will think he picked up the Ron Paul supporters and just ignore it entirely.
Then there are those who suggest sitting out the election to send a message. Of course, since election turn out usually run below 50%, no one will know who is sitting out the election and who is just apathetic. In other words, this is kind of like sending a message by sealing it in a blank envelope and dropping it in a hole in the ground. No one will ever get the message.
Finally, there is the idea of voting Obama to send a message. Again, what message will Republicans get? That Obama
WON! They will see the liberal Democrat won the election and will move left. Or they will see the liberal Democrat win when the numbers are bad for Republicans and assume nothing. In either case, the message will not get through.
I have written on this
dozens of times, but here is the basic argument one last time.
The time to "send a message" is the primary. That is when you persuade the party of your side of the argument. If your side does not carry the day, you do not abandon the party like some child taking your ball and going home. To do so tells the party you are not reliable. If conservatives abandon the party because they did not prevail in the primaries, it tells the party conservatives are unreliable and reduces our voice in the party even more.
More important, this election is
especially crucial. No matter who the Republicans ran, should the Democrats lose this election, when all the factors are in their favor, it will send the message that liberalism loses on the national level.
Even if it wasn't, are you ready to hand this nation to Obama? I know many say it will be like 1992, and we will get conservatives in congress in 2010,
but, what if we don't? What if your prediction is wrong and you just handed the far left the nation on a silver platter for four or more years? What then?
Are you willing to risk your nation's very survival on the hope that a new Newt might get elected in 2010?
POSTSCRIPT
And for those who argue that Obama can't do much harm, I woulds argue that
one man can do immense harm. Just look at
Carter's four years, and the
pain we still feel. And Obama may make us
remember Carter fondly.
In addition, for all those arguing that we didn't suffer from Clinton, especially once Newt and the class of 1994 came along, you are forgetting about 9/11. You are forgetting all the social changes wrought during the Clinton years, as well as the way he gutted our military and destroyed our intelligence agencies. Clinton did a lot of harm, even after 1994. And Obama is worse.
So do not rely on being saved from harm should Obama win. Recognize that your protest vote comes at a huge cost. And you won't be paying that cost alone, you are forcing all of us to pay for
the cost of your protest vote.