My Facebook (and hopefully real-life) friend Jeff Simmons has posted a challenge on Facebook that I think deserves publishing and one I will sign onto along side Jeff. I pledge my vote too:
Lately I’ve been making what I think is a fair and interesting proposal to some of my conservative friends. So far I have no takers. I describe it to you now to see if you have any thoughts about it and in case you’d like to make a similar
offer to conservative acquaintances of your own:“If you voted for Bush in the last two elections and intend to vote for McCain in this one, I have a serious proposition for you. Let me describe it in well-intended, yet frank terms. I promise I mean them quite sincerely and, while they may not all be pleasant to hear, I ask that you please try to take them in the inoffensive spirit they are intended. This is a proposal in two parts.“The first part is a request. If you did vote for Bush in the last two elections, own up to the fact you voted for the wrong guy. I am not trying to get you to change your mind on any of the issues that are important to you. I have been debating with you and other conservatives this entire campaign season till I am red and you are blue in the face, and neither of us want to be that way. I am seldom successful in convincing intelligent conservatives their take on any given policy is wrong and none have been able to get me to yield on any of my progressive ideals and positions. And I acknowledge that, when you voted for Bush, you were not intentionally, or even knowingly, voting for a bad president. I respect you enough to agree you had your own and then nation’s best interest at heart when you went to the polls, much though I may disagree with your perspective on those things.“Despite all that, after eight years, the nation and the world are more dangerous and not as well off as they were before Bush took office. He must be held accountable for this. (Or else why does it even matter who we elect president?) Hence, he has been a bad president, the wrong guy for the job. If you voted for him in 2000 and then, after those first four years, you did so again, you made two honest mistakes. I do not mean this as some sort of terrible accusation. I make mistakes (often repeatedly) all the time. So it is in no way meant to imply there’s something wrong with you as a person. But there does seem to be something wrong with how you select who to vote for in presidential elections lately. “If you voted for Bush in the past, I understand why McCain appears to you to be the better candidate to vote for now. It’s only natural. I am not asking you to take a closer look at McCain, hoping that you will somehow miraculously slap your forehead and say, ‘Yeah. You’re right. Senator John S. McCain sucks and I just never saw it.’ However, I do ask that you calmly look at your own voting record. If you voted twice for Bush you are 0 for 2 in selecting good presidents in the twenty first century. Please don’t refuse to acknowledge this on the basis that it’s some kind of admission that you are a bad person. That is not my intent and I promise that is not how I see you.“But admitting that two votes for George W Bush were a repeated honest mistake is the premise for the second part of my proposal: the offer of a deal. Here’s the deal.“If you voted for Bush in the last two elections and, so far, intend to vote for McCain,
accept (as I say) that you’ve made a couple of mistakes in the past and admit that whatever criteria you use for choosing a candidate may well be leading you to make a third, similar mistake. Instead of doing that, take my deal and vote for Barack Obama this time around. If, after four years under President Obama, the situation in the nation and around the world is worse off than it is today, I promise in the next election I will vote for whoever you ask me to select. And I mean ANYBODY. Pat Robertson? Fine. Marion Barry? You got it. If you vote for Barack Obama this year and things are worse four years from now, I’ll vote for the Cat in the Hat, if you wish it.“I am convinced this is a fair deal. While you do have to follow through on your end four years before I must fulfill mine, this does not mean you would somehow be ante-ing up everything with no risk to me. It is a ‘gentleman’s agreement’, the only risk to either of us is that the other might secretly renege once inside the voting booth. You may say you also risk four bad years if Obama wins and turns out to be a bad president. But, to be fair, I have endured eight bad years of bad president Bush thanks, in part, to your well-intentioned bad voting. I believe my asking you to take the slim chance that things will be worse for half as long is not only fair, but kind of gracious. And who knows? You could lose miserably and we’ll find ourselves living in a happier, healthier world. I give you my additional word: I will not rub it in.“Let’s please do this. I’m happy to hear any counter-offer you might make, but I hope you see that this is pretty reasonable and honestly proffered
in a spirit of friendly invitation. It will definitely make things interesting till 2012.”So, that’s what I’ve offered to three conservative friends so far. Still no takers. All three have laughed and said I’m crazy in one way or another. When I ask why they won’t do it, they resort to their reasons FOR voting for McCain, which I had hoped to indicate wasn’t the issue. And none of them have come to me with an alternative deal. I think they think I am joking, which is a shame, because I am not.Anyway, I’d love to hear what any of you have to say and, especially, if any of you manage to get one of your own potential McCain voters to buy in. I don’t hold out much hope for winning this season. But I thought it couldn’t hurt to help at least one person avoid making a bad mistake for a third time.
5 comments:
I can't believe it took this guy a thousand words to tell me he thinks he's smarter than me. It comes across as a bit of a childish rant (like most baseless liberal diatribes tend to).
I know you only posted this to f- with me, but tine, I'll humor you/him a little. I didn't vote for Bush in either of the past two elections. Actually, I didn't vote, period. Call me cynical, but a conservative vote in a state as blue as Maryland is is a waste of effort. Nonetheless, I thought then, as I do now, that Bush was the better candidate. The lesser of two evils, if you will.
I'm curious as to why Mr. Simmons thinks the past eight years has been so bad? Because of war? Well, what was the enlightened alternative that Al Gore would have pursued? Putting the FBI on the case, maybe? Even better, had the electorate not made that "mistake" he refers to in 2004, what would a President Kerry have done? Maybe he would have made good on his campaign promise and pulled everyone out of Iraq. That'd be nice; then we'd be left with a humiliating defeat and an Iraq that resembles Cambodia in the 70's instead of a burgeoning democracy that becomes more stable by the day.
I would agree that mistakes have been made in the prosecution of the war, and Rumsfeld was an ass (and by extension, Bush made the mistake of sticking with him way too long). But no war has ever run smoothly. Crap, the invasion of Italy in WWII was a completely useless waste of tens of thousands of lives. Iwo Jima held little if any strategic importance, and we lost nearly 7000 Americans there in the course of one month of fighting. Since that's a hell of a lot more wasted American lives than has arguably occurred in the past eight years, does that mean Roosevelt was the worst president ever? How about some perspective?
Well what about the economy, you ask? I'll just point you to this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122039890722392873.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
What I like about that article is that it cites its sources, something that liberals generally fail to do when they tell all us stupid people how bad the economy is.
Gas prices? Who is it that has opposed drilling anywhere in this country for decades? Who has opposed building new refineries? Who has opposed building new nuclear plants?
Well what about the current financial crisis? You mean the one brought on by the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Which was the result of relaxed lending practices that the Democrats loved, because lower income families could buy houses, despite not being able to afford them (but who cares, they'll vote Democrat because we got them in a house in the first place? See this article I linked to once before to find out who tried to reign that impending disaster in (hint: it wasn't any Democrat):
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
Maybe I'm giving Mr. Simmons too much credit. Maybe he really doesn't think he's smarter than me. Maybe he just believes everything he reads in the Times. That would certainly explain why he thinks his life sucks and it's all the Republicans' fault. Or rather, those who vote Republican. Anyway, regardless of where he gets his ideas, it's obvious that he is too busy to do any research and come up with his own thoughts rather than just repeating things he hears from the liberal media and from his circle of liberal friends. And he probably doesn't have the time on his hands to take some classes in history and economics.
None of it really matters though. Much like Maryland, New York won't turn red anytime soon, so all of this "challenge" business is a pointless exercise.
Maybe Mr. Simmons can spare the five minutes it would take to read this, even though it's from the wrong Times:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/23/surprised-by-the-obvious/
Some politicians are "surprised" at the obvious because they are ignorant. However, many more are "surprised" because immediate gratification, whether applause or votes, is more important to them than being responsible, and others are "surprised" because they are just plain corrupt. Being "surprised by the obvious" happens in democratic countries because the media are too fearful, ignorant or biased to ask the tough questions beforehand, and because the population doesn't understand the second-order effects of political actions.
Dear Zardoz,
Hello. Here's a bet I guarantee I would win. I'll bet you I will never be able to change your mind about politics and vice versa. I don't dislike you, I don't disrepect you, I definitely do not think you are stupid or even stupider than I. The offer I am making to my conservative close friends (who I consider all very intelligent) is not a challenge. It is a friendly deal, I swear. I am sorry you are despondant about living in a blue state. (By the way, I grew up outside of Gaithersburg and worked on the used-to-be-mildly conservative Gaithersburg Gazette -- Go skins!) However, I hope you do vote this time for whichever canididate your conscience dictates and, if you have kids, I hope you take them with you when you do. In the mean time, I am still looking for one friend who is game enough to swap votes and see what happens. If anyone who sees my offer feels offended or that they are being condescended to, I apologize. That is not my intent.
PS -- I have now read the W. Times article you suggested and (fasten your seatbelt) I don't agree.
The problem I had with your "challenge" was the superior attitude with which you issued it, and how you went on at length about how you didn't think conservatives were stupid, but that they just did stupid things. You didn't present a very compelling argument about why electing Bush over Gore and Kerry was a stupid thing to do, you just set it out there as fact. Just like when you say you don't agree with that W. Times article, you fail to articulate what it is specifically that you don't agree with, or why.
And that's one of the reasons I just can't take liberals seriously. It's all about how things suck with a conservative in charge (which Bush really isn't)(a conservative, that is), and how much better things will be if only the dumb people in this country would let a Democrat back into the White House. No mention of the mechanism of this supposed great change, only that change will happen, so just take their word for it. How about a plan (based on reality)? Is that really too much to ask for?
I am not a Republican. I lean conservative because I believe in the rights of the individual, small government, free markets, and fiscal conservatism (so no, I'm not a huge fan of Bush). I do not believe these things because someone told me that's what I'm supposed to believe, or because that's what my circle of friends believe. I believe them because I have studied philosophy, history, and economics, and have reached these conclusions through contemplative thought over many years. I continually refine these beliefs, so no, I am not opposed to changing my mind, as you suggest. But until I hear a well-reasoned argument to convince me otherwise, I'm still going to believe in a basic philosophy that puts me at odds with the more left-leaning part of the Democratic party.
I am going to vote in this election, if only so I can have the small bit of satisfaction in knowing I will have at least done my part to try to avert the Carter-esque era that I fear will come with an Obama presidency. As far as your challenge goes, I'll decline. You are in a state so blue it's purple, so your offer of switching your vote next time around means nothing. No matter who you vote for, the Democrat candidate will indeed win NY's electoral votes.
So how about we just agree to disagree, and ice down some beers for tonight's debate? Because unless they dig some weird skeleton out of McCain's closet between now and the election, I'm going to go with him. And I have a strange feeling that, no matter what you find out about Obama (which you will refuse to believe anyway), your vote won't change either.
Dear Zardoz,
I gladly agree to disagree. That was the general idea of my initial proposition as well as my response to your critiques. I am perfectly capable of explaining how the last eight years are a textbook case of gross, even criminal, mismanagement AND I am just as good at laying out why Obama is a better candidate, for me, for the nation, for the world and for you, than McCain. I knew when I drafted my offer that, if it is read with a sarcastic tone in mind, it can only be seen as condescending -- it is a risk I take. I do assert that Bush supporters made a mistake. I don't have to defend how "wonderful" a Gore or a Kerry presidency might have been. Those are exercises in alternate universe science fiction. It may be fun for me, but it wouldn’t get us anywhere.
But, if we are to have a real dialogue (nationally, I mean) about where to steer this country of ours (and where superpower USA goes, so goes the world), then we must be able to call each other out and say, "Hey. I think you made a mistake last time." That's all I'm trying to do. I campaigned for Carter in '76. That was a mistake. I would take it back if I could.
I grasp that you are informed in your opinions, as I ask you allow I may be as well. I have come to the realization that smart guys and gals like us are much smarter at defending our respective positions than trying the other one on for size. So my offer (And, again, it is not a challenge. It is not some kind of dare. I cannot stress that enough) was simply to take our well-trammeled rhetoric out of the equation and enter into a little experiment, together, with equal shares of risk on both sides.
Also, I did not and do not make the offer to you, especially if you take it as some sort of intentional affront, but to my personal friends. I can only make it with one person and I'm a little surprised that I have no takers yet. I thought it would be kind of fun. However, I am glad to have begun this conversation with you. If you get tired of it, I will understand. But, though I personally am doing very well these days, I am not happy with how many of my neighbors and extended family are faring and I am convinced this nation needs some fixing. It will not get fixed if folks like me refuse to speak with folks like you.
And (get ready to die of shock) I have a martini with my debates. Not beer.
Post a Comment