"Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence. True friendship is a plant of slow growth, and must undergo and withstand the shocks of adversity before it is entitled to the appellation." ~ George Washington
Since some time before the beginning of the Presidential primaries, I have become increasingly concerned over what appears to be a divide between factions of the Republican party. Specifically, between the backers of the various candidates.
There is a divide in the Democratic party, too, but as far as I'm concerned, that is a good thing. So, they can fight until the destroy themselves for all I care. In fact, I wish they would.
It's American to back a particular candidate for President, but let's not lose our focus in our zeal to convince others to agree with us. Republicans need to stick together. The vigor in which we back our favorite candidates is admirable but we must remember when the convention comes, we have to come together.
This is my concern:
If this divide widens, we face the very real possibility of accidentally creating a third party candidate and that would virtually hand the election over to the Democrats.
And that is something we cannot let happen. That would absolutely be the worst case scenario.
I like Hunter. Others like Thompson, and still others like Guiliani, Romney, and Huckabee. Some others even like Ron Paul.
But some of us (me included) are growing increasingly angry with each other over our particular choice of candidates. That also concerns me.
No matter who our favorite candidates are, when the convention convenes, we must back whatever candidate the party chooses. Even if we have to hold our noses to do so. We cannot embrace a third party candidate or simply refuse to vote at all.
And we must not let our personal feelings cause a disruption of friendships that we have forged and cultivated out of a mutual love and respect for our country and our party. Our goal remains the same whoever we choose to lead us into the next four years.
I, for one, hereby resolve to be less snarky with my fellow Republicans, even if they are supporting Guiliani.
Let's back our candidate until he either wins or loses the nomination. Don't let the primaries make your decision on who to support for you. Support the candidates that best reflect your own personal ideologies regardless of who wins in South Carolina, or Michigan, or wherever. When you vote in the primaries, the issue will resolve itself.
If your candidate doesn't win the eventual nomination, then throw your support behind the party's candidate. But in any event, let's remains friends.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
No matter who our favorite candidates are, when the convention convenes, we must back whatever candidate the party chooses. Even if we have to hold our noses to do so.
You willing to carry this even further? That no matter who the Nation as a whole chooses for the office, that we - as Americans and brothers and sisters must unite together behind him or her?
As for me, I encourage people to vote their conscience (within reason). I can not possibly imagine voting for Clinton if she wins. I can abide any of the other Dems if nominated (even if they're not my first choice), but not her.
I think voting your conscience is a good thing and having more than a two party lock on our gov't would be a great thing. I think the two party system is failing us miserably and we need more and better choices, not fewer.
For my part, I will also support the President whoever is elected - Dem or Republican - unless and until such time that they start taking actions that are not in our interests as a nation. And then, I will start standing opposed to that particular action or policy. As I encourage everyone else to do.
I certainly don't care for what I hear from most of the Republican candidates, but I don't think of them as "the enemy," as so many from both parties seem to be prepared to think. I think a Ron Paul presidency might even be a kick.
"For my part, I will also support the President whoever is elected - Dem or Republican - unless and until such time that they start taking actions that are not in our interests as a nation. And then, I will start standing opposed to that particular action or policy. As I encourage everyone else to do."
Is that not what we all do? The only differennce is: Liberals create opposition to good policies based on how they personally feel about the President, ie, Bush.
If the bad policy is there, I believe we must speak out against it, but Liberals make up policies with which to speak out against in order to sow dissension.
If the bad policy is there, I believe we must speak out against it, but Liberals make up policies with which to speak out against in order to sow dissension.
Is that not what we all do? Mark, I don't criticize Bush because I don't like him. I'm not in third grade, brother.
I criticize some of his policies because I think they're deadly and wrong. I think his war in Iraq is increasing, not decreasing, terrorism (as gov't studies have shown). I think his invasion of Iraq was immoral and probably illegal and so it is, as you suggested, bad policy and I'm speaking out against it.
I criticize the policy of hiring convicted felons (Bush hired at least two former Reagan employees - Abrams and Poindexter - who were convicted for lying to Congress about war crimes). I think that bad policy and spoke out against it.
I criticized the policy of hiring industry flunkees to be overseers of that industry - hiring a former Coal Boss to make sure that the Coal industry operates within the law, for instance. I think that bad policy and spoke out against it.
I have no particular opinion of Bush the man. I am criticizing the policies. I'm not "making up policies" to disagree with to sow dissension. Am I not allowed my opinion and for my opinion to be considered worthwhile on its own, without assuming a childish "hate Bush" reason for my opposition or without assuming a diabolical "They're just doing it to sow dissension"?
I fully support your opposing policies that President Obama creates when he's president IF you offer legitimate reasons why you're opposed to it, as I've offered legitimate reasons why I'm opposed to particular Bush policies.
All I was asking is would we unite together behind the next president when he/she's elected - at least until such time as that president makes a policy with which you disagree? OR, shall we continue to be a nation divided and begin with the assumption that the next president is an ENEMY if he/she's from a different party?
"You willing to carry this even further? That no matter who the Nation as a whole chooses for the office, that we - as Americans and brothers and sisters must unite together behind him or her?"
Be serious, Danielsan.
Or do you mean...like the way you supported George Bush?
I can do that!
Mark, how can I stand by when I've condemned the hatred displayed by the left over the past several years, and allow Republicans...so called "conservatives" spout exactly the same kind of hatred and distortion?
I cannot. And the hatred being displayed by many who I have been proud to stand beside politically is affecting my attitude.
Sorry, can't help it.
It may come to my sitting home on Election Day. Or casting my vote for a third-party candidate...if Romney is the nomineee.
I WILL NOT cast my vote for Romney. All others....yes. Not Romney.
Romney's nomination will cut me clean out of the party. I will not be associated with a political party that embraces a guy like him.
I agree with you, Mark. If we don't stick together during election time, then we will undoubtedly wind up with a Democrat in the White House.
Personally, I'm backing Thompson. I like Duncan Hunter too. Many of my conservative friends, both personal and internet bloggers, are not backing Thompson. Some are backing Rudy, some are backing McCain, some Romney. I don't know anyone who's backing Huckabee. I know one blogger who's backing Ron Paul, but he's a kid and can't vote anyway, so it doesn't matter. I'm not fighting over anyone's decision as this is a free country, and it's their right to back whomever they choose. My only hope is the same as yours... that they don't withhold their votes like children cutting their noses off to spite their faces because they aren't getting their way. That truly is a major concern.
Dan, I seriously considered deleting your last comment because you are acting as if I was addressing you personally. This may come as a shock to you, but this post was directed primarily to fellow Republicans, not you.
But you redeemed yourself with your next to final statement, "All I was asking is would we unite together behind the next president when he/she's elected - at least until such time as that president makes a policy with which you disagree?
That, I can and do agree with. I can supoort a Democrat President but I seriously doubt they would create any policies with which I agree.
Daddio, refusing to vote for any candidate that stands even slightly to the right of the likes of Obama, and/or Hillary (God forbid she is elected) is the same as voting for the Democrats in my opinion. You would get what you deserve, but unfortunately, the rest of us would be adversely affected as well. I don't think Mitt is the worst Republican candidate, although anyone who can get himself elected Governor of a radically Liberal state such as Massachusetts is suspect in my opinion..
Principle, Mark.
I cannot vote for someone so blatantly dishonest and pandering. I cannot. I will not.
And believe me...I didn't make the decision lightly.
It's not me rejecting the party...it's the party rejecting me...if it comes to that...and I HOPE it does not.
But some of us (me included) are growing increasingly angry with each other over our particular choice of candidates. That also concerns me.
I have no such anger, personally. In fact, I encourage a lot of Fred supporters. I want Romney to be a good candidate. I'm thrilled that Fred has shaken himself loose of his apparent "malaise", when it comes to firing up the non-Fred Heads to take another look at him.
My whole thing, is that I do believe it is important, not to "compromise" your values and principles for "electability", but to take electability into account. It's not "either/or". Both have their relevance, and you should weigh them into consideration.
To put forth a candidate who represents your worldviews 100%, but has a 10% likelihood of winning the Presidency, are not good odds to gamble on; it's almost as good as putting into office the candidate with whom you will disagree with 99% of the time- the Democratic one.
That's why I have little respect for those who are so spoiled, they will sit out an election, rather than adulterate the GOP to the conservative not of their choice. Doing this guarantees that 100% of the policy issues they care about will not be advanced.
I, for one, hereby resolve to be less snarky with my fellow Republicans, even if they are supporting Guiliani.
Mark, I hope Mike and I didn't step on your toes. It wasn't our intent. Debate is a very healthy thing- especially amongst those you are politically aligned with.
I, too, pledge to support whoever the GOP nominee will be, with the only reservation being if it is Ron Paul, only because his adamant positioning on foreign policy is 98% disagreeable to me.
Dan Trabue wrote:
You willing to carry this even further? That no matter who the Nation as a whole chooses for the office, that we - as Americans and brothers and sisters must unite together behind him or her?
I believe Dan on his argument that it is Bush's policies and not the man himself, that Dan locks, loads, and aims his peace canons at.
It kind of gets back to the conundrum of "balancing" a way to support the troops while being opposed to the war. It's a bit of a tightrope dance.
For the record, I was never a nasty Clinton-hater. I disagree with him on policy, but I'd still show him respect and acknowledgement as my President, and elected leader of my country.
I think the two party system is failing us miserably and we need more and better choices, not fewer.
The way our Constitutional system is set up, third parties are as good as throwing away your vote.
I certainly don't care for what I hear from most of the Republican candidates, but I don't think of them as "the enemy," as so many from both parties seem to be prepared to think.
I think most people are in public office, or enter into it, because they honestly want to help make things better. There may be other motives in there as well, of course.
I think a Ron Paul presidency might even be a kick.
That's because he's the Kucinich from the right!
Kooch-Paul 2008?
Lord, have mercy!!
Hey, you will be excited. I'm going to be interviewing a Duncan Hunter representative on my radio show next Monday. A lot of Hunter supporters are going to be calling in also so it should be a great show.
Mark,
I agree with your sentiments. I am currently split between Fred and Duncan and could easily cast my vote for either. As to electability, it's simply not a problem if all on the right take the position Mark is pushing. And in this particular election, it seems to be far more important to support the party nominee, whoever he is, rather than risk any of the wacky Dems from winning.
I have my concerns regarding Mitt as well, Al-O. But can you honestly say Shrillary, Barry Hussein or Silky Pony would serve you better? Can you really?? And you must know that there is no chance for a third party in this country at this time (I personally hope there never is), so to vote for a third party guy or to stay home and not vote simply helps the Dem nominee, and that's not a good thing at all.
Back to that electability thing...
I say again, anyone's electable if the votes are there. From what I can tell thus far, only Thompson and Hunter truly reflect the type of conservatism conservatives seem to want. All GOP votes should be pouring in behind either one of them, and the current big four should be the also-rans. So no matter what happens this time around, the future should see every so-called conservative out front demanding conservatism of our reps and rep hopefuls, articulating the truth about conservatism to those who aren't or are on the fence, and BEING principled enough to do both. Just think what could happen if each of us could hand-hold one squishy lib or one shakey fence sitter to see the light that is conservatism!
Dan never fails to supply me with something upon which to comment. So this is for him:
"I think the two party system is failing us miserably and we need more and better choices, not fewer."
It ain't the system. It's the voting public that has failed. All the national candidates have some kind of track record to consider. Most of them are products of local politics. This is where we need to pay attention. Attend local political events if possible, but at least pay attention to your own turf. The people coming out of your own ward, district, whatever are YOUR responsibility. Thus, the choices are plentiful now. The public in general has simply made too many bad ones.
I'll skip the lame anti-Irag war stuff for brevity and go to this:
"I criticize the policy of hiring convicted felons.."
Yet, you want tax money going to the prison system to educate those who already crapped on the education provided by tax money, in order to reduce the rate of returns to crime. But then, you don't want them hired? At least Bush is hiring experienced and qualified people. And aside from the fact that their guilt is a matter of political opinion, how unChristian to assume that they are incapable of changing their ways and being productive and a true asset.
"I criticized the policy of hiring industry flunkees to be overseers of that industry..." Use of the word "flunkees"(sp) indicates you're being judgemental again or just plain biased. You'd prefer someone who knows nothing of the industry to oversee it? They'd know for certain when a piece of legislation is harmful to the industry rather than merely reigning it in?
Sounds to me like you indeed have a problem with Bush the man if you assume his decisions in these two matters means trouble.
No worries about a third party this time around, Mark. A viable third party run must have a charismatic Individual LEADING a MOVEMENT --there is nobody around that fits that mold.
There will not be a conservative President in 2009. The best we can hope for is a non-socialist...
There was a lot more support for Clinton when he was president (despite his seeming political death wish) than there is for Bush, whom democrats hate with a fiery passion. Remember the days when we had a loyal opposition? That happens only when there is a democrat in the White House.
Post a Comment