I have a sneaking suspicion I want to vote for McCain because the Obamaniacs drive me crazy and the thought of pissing off zealots makes me happy, even if it means Gay Marriage would be harder.
Now you're telling me if I vote for McCain it will piss off all the Ron Paul zealots that drive me crazy too?
Every candidate has his or her zealots (call them what you will). It's nothing more than the commonest of wisdom that observes that assholes are to be found everywhere. In politics it takes to form of the wildly enthusiastic, fans, in the older meaning of the word.
Anyone who's made the mistake of seeing a candidate as a savior... has slid into that state. In practice... they inevitably disappoint. Not because they're bad people, necessarily, but because they're people--and because we're people, and because the world is complex, because there are dueling, messy issues... and because sometimes something ends up being the "price" (distastefully) of greater needs.
The answer that has allowed my mind/spirit to be far less troubled by such lunatics is to remember that they are the noisy minority, not the center (of any plausible, sane candidate) of support.
As for epilonius... the impulse to cut one's nose (and the nose of others) off for the pleasure of it is something worth learning to let go of. Not that I don't understand it, or feel it.
CC... "by which I assume Paul means the Jew Right"--ye gods below, what sort of rock is The Nation? The things squirming around under it are really revolting.
Ummm... Petey... what part of "Don't vote for my candidate, you libertarian losers, he's way too cool and doesn't need you anyway!" doesn't smack of zealotry?
It's politics, there are zealots all around.
Believe me, nobody is sicker of Obama freaks than me. I think Hillary would have done a good job, but I'm glad the nomination is done because if I honestly heard an Obama supporter say one more patently crazy anti-Hillary sentiment* I was going to start screaming and never stop.
So, OK, I will vote for Obama, something I never had a problem with doing, though I disagree with him on a lot.
You know, Richardson would make a badass VP...
CC
*Including, but not limited to: -Blantant misstatements of Hillary's/Obama's positions by people who don't know what they are talking about -Claims that Obama is way above all other politicians and is doing politics in some sort of new way (a new way that apparently also includes taking money from sleazy people and not letting gay people get married) -Claims that pretty much everything Hillary does is racist and/or that the sexism Hillary has faced is no big deal. I mean, it's all in good fun when Obama calls female poltical reporters "Sweetie" and Edwards implies that she's too emotional to run the country. -Claims that they could not possibly vote for Hillary -Claims that some wacky percentage of Hillary supporters are saying they couldn't vote for Obama. (I've heard the statistics, but what I've never heard is a Hillary supporter I know actually say he/she would never vote for Obama. I can list off half a dozen Obama supporters whom I know personally who have said they wouldn't vote for Hillary. Maybe my friends are a giant statistical anamoly, but I doubt it.) -Claims that arguements against Obama are "Attacks on hope" or something equally weird. -Claims that Hillary is trying to in some way subvert the democratic process by, you know, not stepping down -Claims that Hillary broke some sort of code by insulting another democrat. These claims are invariably posted on blogs that have been insulting Hillary for months.
I didn't say my wishes were rational... I just consider them bonuses.
In all honesty I am probably just going to have a long discussion with my Room-mate Geoff because he does very level headed estimations of what candidates positions are... and doesn't try to win me one way or another.
We also agree that Obama hasn't really described how he plans to do things to a level that makes either of us comfortable. I am scared he will be a democratic Bush, in that he will show up on the coat-tails of idealism and then hand off all the jobs to hapless cronies that screw everything up. With McCain I feel I have a better idea of what some of his larger plans are.
I dunno. I may just sit this one out. "The person I wanted isn't there and neither of the replacements appeal to me and I want nothing to do with either of them"
-Claims that some wacky percentage of Hillary supporters are saying they couldn't vote for Obama. (I've heard the statistics, but what I've never heard is a Hillary supporter I know actually say he/she would never vote for Obama. I can list off half a dozen Obama supporters whom I know personally who have said they wouldn't vote for Hillary. Maybe my friends are a giant statistical anamoly, but I doubt it.)
Yes, I think your friends are a statistical anomaly. What I've heard by callers on the radio are a lot of Hillary people who will refuse to vote for Obama, and a few Obama fans who said they wouldn't vote for Hillary. This includes programs where they do not screen callers. Mind you, the majority still said they would vote for the nominee, because any Dem is better than McCain. And yes, both Hillary and Obama are too corporate for me. But the non-corporate candidate couldn't get air-time on the corporate-owned media.
"Maybe my friends are a giant statistical anamoly"
I don't know if your friends are a giant statistical anomaly, but judging by the folks at last Saturday's DNC meeting who were yelling "McCain in '08" when they didn't totally get their way, and the folks who voted for her in WV who were interviewed saying that they were troubled by Obama's race, Muslim-ness or the fact that his middle name is Hussein, there are some strange Clinton supporters.
It's Reagan who originated the idea that speaking ill of a member of one's party breaks the 11th commandment. But even he was talking about politicians, not pundits or regular people. Comparing Clinton's negative words about Obama to what pro-Obama blogs say about Clinton is a bit apples to oranges.
As for ogre's reference to The Nation, huh? The link was to the Weekly Standard, which is probably the publication most identified with neoconservatism (founded by Irving Kristol's son) and most fond of McCain. National Review is still reconciling itself after watching its favorites -- Giuliani, Thompson, Romney -- go down in flames.
8 comments:
I feel concerned.
I have a sneaking suspicion I want to vote for McCain because the Obamaniacs drive me crazy and the thought of pissing off zealots makes me happy, even if it means Gay Marriage would be harder.
Now you're telling me if I vote for McCain it will piss off all the Ron Paul zealots that drive me crazy too?
McCain just keeps looking better and better.
Lessons learned in decades past:
Every candidate has his or her zealots (call them what you will). It's nothing more than the commonest of wisdom that observes that assholes are to be found everywhere. In politics it takes to form of the wildly enthusiastic, fans, in the older meaning of the word.
Anyone who's made the mistake of seeing a candidate as a savior... has slid into that state. In practice... they inevitably disappoint. Not because they're bad people, necessarily, but because they're people--and because we're people, and because the world is complex, because there are dueling, messy issues... and because sometimes something ends up being the "price" (distastefully) of greater needs.
The answer that has allowed my mind/spirit to be far less troubled by such lunatics is to remember that they are the noisy minority, not the center (of any plausible, sane candidate) of support.
As for epilonius... the impulse to cut one's nose (and the nose of others) off for the pleasure of it is something worth learning to let go of. Not that I don't understand it, or feel it.
CC... "by which I assume Paul means the Jew Right"--ye gods below, what sort of rock is The Nation? The things squirming around under it are really revolting.
Ummm... Petey... what part of "Don't vote for my candidate, you libertarian losers, he's way too cool and doesn't need you anyway!" doesn't smack of zealotry?
It's politics, there are zealots all around.
Believe me, nobody is sicker of Obama freaks than me. I think Hillary would have done a good job, but I'm glad the nomination is done because if I honestly heard an Obama supporter say one more patently crazy anti-Hillary sentiment* I was going to start screaming and never stop.
So, OK, I will vote for Obama, something I never had a problem with doing, though I disagree with him on a lot.
You know, Richardson would make a badass VP...
CC
*Including, but not limited to:
-Blantant misstatements of Hillary's/Obama's positions by people who don't know what they are talking about
-Claims that Obama is way above all other politicians and is doing politics in some sort of new way (a new way that apparently also includes taking money from sleazy people and not letting gay people get married)
-Claims that pretty much everything Hillary does is racist and/or that the sexism Hillary has faced is no big deal. I mean, it's all in good fun when Obama calls female poltical reporters "Sweetie" and Edwards implies that she's too emotional to run the country.
-Claims that they could not possibly vote for Hillary
-Claims that some wacky percentage of Hillary supporters are saying they couldn't vote for Obama. (I've heard the statistics, but what I've never heard is a Hillary supporter I know actually say he/she would never vote for Obama. I can list off half a dozen Obama supporters whom I know personally who have said they wouldn't vote for Hillary. Maybe my friends are a giant statistical anamoly, but I doubt it.)
-Claims that arguements against Obama are "Attacks on hope" or something equally weird.
-Claims that Hillary is trying to in some way subvert the democratic process by, you know, not stepping down
-Claims that Hillary broke some sort of code by insulting another democrat. These claims are invariably posted on blogs that have been insulting Hillary for months.
I didn't say my wishes were rational... I just consider them bonuses.
In all honesty I am probably just going to have a long discussion with my Room-mate Geoff because he does very level headed estimations of what candidates positions are... and doesn't try to win me one way or another.
We also agree that Obama hasn't really described how he plans to do things to a level that makes either of us comfortable. I am scared he will be a democratic Bush, in that he will show up on the coat-tails of idealism and then hand off all the jobs to hapless cronies that screw everything up. With McCain I feel I have a better idea of what some of his larger plans are.
I dunno. I may just sit this one out. "The person I wanted isn't there and neither of the replacements appeal to me and I want nothing to do with either of them"
-Claims that some wacky percentage of Hillary supporters are saying they couldn't vote for Obama. (I've heard the statistics, but what I've never heard is a Hillary supporter I know actually say he/she would never vote for Obama. I can list off half a dozen Obama supporters whom I know personally who have said they wouldn't vote for Hillary. Maybe my friends are a giant statistical anamoly, but I doubt it.)
Yes, I think your friends are a statistical anomaly. What I've heard by callers on the radio are a lot of Hillary people who will refuse to vote for Obama, and a few Obama fans who said they wouldn't vote for Hillary. This includes programs where they do not screen callers.
Mind you, the majority still said they would vote for the nominee, because any Dem is better than McCain.
And yes, both Hillary and Obama are too corporate for me. But the non-corporate candidate couldn't get air-time on the corporate-owned media.
Who was claiming to be the "non-corporate" candidate?
CC
After watching both McCain's and Obama's speeches on TV Tuesday night, McCain no less than NEEDS to run Alaska Gov Sarah Palin as his VP mate.
"Maybe my friends are a giant statistical anamoly"
I don't know if your friends are a giant statistical anomaly, but judging by the folks at last Saturday's DNC meeting who were yelling "McCain in '08" when they didn't totally get their way, and the folks who voted for her in WV who were interviewed saying that they were troubled by Obama's race, Muslim-ness or the fact that his middle name is Hussein, there are some strange Clinton supporters.
It's Reagan who originated the idea that speaking ill of a member of one's party breaks the 11th commandment. But even he was talking about politicians, not pundits or regular people. Comparing Clinton's negative words about Obama to what pro-Obama blogs say about Clinton is a bit apples to oranges.
As for ogre's reference to The Nation, huh? The link was to the Weekly Standard, which is probably the publication most identified with neoconservatism (founded by Irving Kristol's son) and most fond of McCain. National Review is still reconciling itself after watching its favorites -- Giuliani, Thompson, Romney -- go down in flames.
Post a Comment