…and this is a 
The fundamentalist formula for electoral success
Category: Kooks
Posted on: September 3, 2008 5:00 PM, by PZ Myers
Some of the right-wing loons are speaking their minds, and it certainly is an ugly pit of frothing, foaming sludge sloshing about in their crania. Archy finds a frightening example of insanity out there; this is the blog of an anti-choice Christian Reconstructionist who is just thrilled to pieces about Sarah Palin, but can't stand John McCain. After demonstrating his ignorance rather painfully in giving his reasons why Palin should be elected, ("There is more untapped oil in Alaska than in Saudi Arabia"), he offers his plan for fundies to win the election.
- Vote Constitution Party. (I vote my conscience and cannot support McCain even with Palin.)
- Pray for Sarah Palin to win. (I am an idealist, but also a realist!)
- Pray for John McCain's salvation and speedy death. (Google The Forerunner's articles on Impecatory Prayer if you think this is harsh.)
So…vote for some other gomer who doesn't have a chance of winning — I like that part. I hope he does vote that way, as do many other radical Christians.
Next, be a realist (I don't think he knows what that word means), and ask his omnipotent sky fairy to magically bypass his vote and give the election to the Republicans. This isn't so bad — I wish more radical Christians would take their faith more seriously and sit at home praying furiously and ineffectually. I urge them all to spend election day on bended knee before folded hands.
Finally, and this is the ugly, as opposed to the merely moronic, part of the fundagelical brain, ask said sky fairy to murder the president. Also ineffectual and a good waste of the Christian's time, but jeez, that's cold and amoral. And revealing.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Glen Davidson | September 3, 2008 5:12 PM
I wonder how the Great Designer managed to put the righteous one in the second nominee slot, and the unrighteous one in first place.
Then again, he's a whimsical creature, metamorphosing forelimbs of animals into wings again and again, for no more reason than that he wants to/and or was smoking his good herb (pot was made before humans--which explains so much) when he made the pinnacle of creation, mammals and humans.
Could be he just wants to kill off McCain.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: llewelly | September 3, 2008 5:19 PM
hmmm... What can we do to convince every fundamentalist to adopt this plan?
Posted by: Richard Harris | September 3, 2008 5:20 PM
From over here in England, it just seems incredible that a considerable percentage of the American public could vote for nutjobs like Palin who believe crazy feckin' nonsense.
I watched her performance on Richard Dawkins' site. She speaks as if that feckin' god of her's actually exists, & she knows its mind, too. What a feckin' edjit! A British politician wouldn't dare speak such lunatic crap.
Keep up the assault, PZ. By mocking the religious nonsense, we will defeat it, because it has no substance.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 3, 2008 5:20 PM
I wonder if he'll get a visit from the Secret Service for threatening the life of a presidential candidate?
I got a visit from the suit and sunglass crowd for much less than that over Pat Robertson's run in 88.
Posted by: llewelly | September 3, 2008 5:22 PM
er, I intended, what can we do to convince every fundamentalist to adopt the first two points of this plan?
Posted by: Bostonian | September 3, 2008 5:25 PM
As an average citizen, I am 87,287,336th in line for the office of President of the United States ... should the 87,287,335 people ahead of me happen to die unexpectedly (without any suspicion being aroused). I've been trying the prayer thing for years but it hasn't worked so far. Perhaps if everyone on this site joins in I'll be able to become president and finally implement some sensible policies, like a socialized Free Ice Cream Day.
Posted by: MikeM | September 3, 2008 5:26 PM
If Obama wins, and I hope he does, what does this say about the power of prayer?
Not that we haven't learned volumes about prayer's lack of power anyway.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 3, 2008 5:29 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp wrote:
You've got a point there. If we took prayer seriously we'd have to call that attempted murder through magical means (praying for McCain's death). They use to burn witches for that kind of stuff, apparently it was another case of Christian projection.
Posted by: Patricia | September 3, 2008 5:30 PM
Went over and read that guys comments. He talks like McShame is an atheist.
It should be clear to even the most dyed-in-the-wool gawddist that prayers for someones death don't work. Half of the world is praying everyday for Bush & Dickhead to keel over. Some of them five times a day! Our entire country would be blasted like Sodom if gawd was actually up on his golden throne granting wishes. Fools!
Posted by: Prof MTH | September 3, 2008 5:33 PM
Somewhat off topic...
A friend of mine is convinced that the Repugnants are deliberately running this election to lose so that the Democan'ts (Obama) will be forced to clean-up Bush's mess by making really hard and unpopular choices, especially on Iraq. Of course they will oppose Obama at every turn and then point fingers at him in 2012 as being a failure. The same holds if the Democan'ts gain more seats in Congress; the Repugnants will utilize the "nuclear option" or other methods of derailing policy they chastised the Dems for using under Bush which they used themselves under Clinton.
Posted by: fracai | September 3, 2008 5:38 PM
Not that this was a main point or anything, but I don't think that any candidates' chances of winning have any bearing whatsoever on whether one should or shouldn't vote for them.The way I see it, the only way that you can actually waste your vote is by voting for someone who you don't fully believe should win, when someone more qualified (in your view) is also available. In fact, even if there isn't someone else. At least not voting doesn't waste a trip to the voting booth.
Unless, you vote for someone who "can win" just so get a chance at being on the winning team.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | September 3, 2008 5:38 PM
"I wonder how the Great Designer managed to put the righteous one in the second nominee slot, and the unrighteous one in first place."
Duh -- so that America will still have a President after the Rapture!
"If we took prayer seriously we'd have to call that attempted murder through magical means (praying for McCain's death)."
In fact, failing to take this seriously would be a lack of respect for other people's religious beliefs, which many Concerned folks here have told us is very very bad.
Posted by: Eric | September 3, 2008 5:38 PM
McCain ought to be scared to win, because if he does, how long before a religious nut with a gun decides to be the agent of God's plan for Sarah Palin to be President and usher in an oil-drilling theocracy?
Posted by: Holbach | September 3, 2008 5:45 PM
The creotard moron loves Palin, but can't stand McCain and wishes him dead. Here's a solution tailor made for the imbecile: Love jeebus, and kill off god. He has so much faith in both that I am sure he can play one against the other and still come out the loser.
Posted by: mac | September 3, 2008 5:46 PM
No wonder they are thrilled with Palin - ideologically she's right of Ghengis Khan.
No abortion so'ever - even in the case of rape by space invaders or too-friendly uncle Bob ... all womb traffic welcome.
She's a shill for big oil and gas, and believes global warming has zip to do with anything human.
Of course they love her - she shoots caribou - then skins the kill before hacking off a few juicy steaks for din dins. The primal, gun totin' mom in designer wear.
She's also dangerous. Unlike the more obvious blowhards on the right, she's savvy enough to know how to frame her language so that she comes off sounding appealing to those who are open to being seduced. Plus she can dress the part and looks at home on the front page of glossy mags. She's a magnet for the god n' family crowd who are desperate for a pin up girl.
It was a desperate move, but clever in some respects. It will backfire once the initial sheen begins to wear off.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 3, 2008 5:52 PM
fracai wrote:
That's not the way I see it. If you really dislike the policies of one candidate it makes perfect sense to vote for the guy most likely to beat him. The only way to waste a vote is not to vote or throw it away on a hopeless candidate. Of course, knowing when something is hopeless is a problem and sometimes the point for voting third party is to show others there is significant support for this other party and hope they grow -- a good thing to do when the major parties are close on their views.
Posted by: Mephisto | September 3, 2008 5:53 PM
This puts me rather in mind of an occasion on which Chris Rock declared that there would never be a black VP for a white President, as some black guy would just assassinate the President to bring the black President to power and just get pardoned by the new black President.
Except this guy is probably not a comedian. Uhh...
Posted by: raven | September 3, 2008 5:58 PM
Using supernatural powers to kill someone has an old name. It is called witchcraft. According to the bible, witches are to be put to death.
If this guy believed 10% of what he is babbling, he would immediately check himself out from planet earth. Buncha hypocrites.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 3, 2008 5:59 PM
Ghengis Khan would never have called himself pro-life and he would have considered oil useless muck.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 3, 2008 6:05 PM
raven wrote:
No, witchcraft was the name for other religions that seemed to work better than Christianity and had to be stamped out. Since morality comes from God and God can't do anything immoral then only a heathen would consider it a crime. Other religions however... well, they're evil because of the first commandment already, even if they help people. (Not my view, but I think theirs.)
Posted by: hje | September 3, 2008 6:09 PM
What I worry about is that people like this might just decide that their God is being too poky, so to help speed the plow ...
Posted by: Bevans | September 3, 2008 6:10 PM
Hmm...we need to start a "political prayer" movement that pushes the idea that voting shows a lack of faith in God and that people should pray for their candidate to win instead. Maybe that would help keep some of the fundies out of the voting booths.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 3, 2008 6:14 PM
The revealing thing is that death isn't even necessary. Why not just pray that McShame suddenly gets an irresistible urge to "spend more time with his family"?
I'm not sure what it reveals, though: bloodlust, ignorance, or stupidity ( = knowing death isn't necessary, but simply not having thought about that)? Inquiring minds want to know!
Posted by: DrBadger | September 3, 2008 6:16 PM
Good suggestion Bevans. They just might be stupid enough to fall for it.
Posted by: Sastra | September 3, 2008 6:17 PM
Oh, what irony in the name "Constitution Party." Look at their preamble (which is ever such an improvement over the preamble of the actual Constitution):
The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.
This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.
The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.
Yes, the Bible is just filled with references to tolerating other religions, isn't it? God doesn't care whether anyone worships false gods or not.
Years ago, when the Wisconsin Freethinkers had a booth at the State Fair, the Constitution Party was just a few tables down. We had some interesting conversations.
Posted by: JStein | September 3, 2008 6:17 PM
I hope that most of these guys do leave the Republican party, because having a third crazy party is how things are supposed to be.
Posted by: skyotter | September 3, 2008 6:28 PM
yeah, well, let's see them pray for a MUSLIM presidential candidate's and/or president-elect's speedy death, the cowards!
[/still unclear how Fatwa Envy is supposed to work]
Posted by: Patricia | September 3, 2008 6:30 PM
Palin cannot be in the top slot - 1 Timothy 2:11 : Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Once again the fundies fail to live up to their own crappy religion.
Posted by: Rik. | September 3, 2008 6:38 PM
@ Patricia, #9:
The reason the prayers of all those people praying for Bush's death aren't working is because they are praying to THE WRONG GOD! Sheesh, that should be obvious. There's only 1 that can actually act on prayers (the one that everyone will claim is theirs) because there can only be 1 real one!
Oh, and all those prayers not working, why, that's just the "Mysterious Ways" It's not like the god they chose could possibly be the wrong one!
Seriously, though, I always wonder HOW CAN PEOPLE BE THIS STUPID? Oh well, America is going to Hell anyways. (metaphorically speaking. Hell does exist, but I doubt you could fit all of America in a small village in Scandinavia (I forgot which country it's in) ) Boy, am I glad I don't live there. (Yes I'm rubbing it in)
Posted by: Martin | September 3, 2008 6:38 PM
Anyone who's still unsure whether or not to vote for Obama ought to be convinced to vote for him now, if only to enjoy the spectacle of seeing so many fundagelical wackaloons' heads explode with the anguish!
Posted by: The Chemist | September 3, 2008 6:45 PM
Why not just pray for the Constitution party to win?
Hey I didn't make the rules, but that's the straightest line between two points, right?
Posted by: Robert | September 3, 2008 6:48 PM
#11 - The only true way to waste your vote is to not vote. I strongly suspect that the couch will, once again, attract more votes than either presidential candidate - just like every election since Nixon quit.
That said - voting should also be a pragmatic exercise. If you really don't want guy O to win, then by voting for some-random-guy instead of guy M (who you don't like, but can tolerate - esp. with his hot VP girl P), you diminish guy M's chances of winning and increase guy O's chances. This may not be considered a rational act.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | September 3, 2008 6:52 PM
Bzzzt! Sorry, wrong answer (or at least partially so). The nickname "nuclear option" refers to the Senate Republicans' threat that they would change the rules to eliminate the filibuster if the (then minority) Dems actually used the filibuster. You only control the rules when you're in the majority, so the Repubs could not use this particular threat if (as is almost certain) the Dems increase their majority in the Senate. That's not to say there aren't other parliamentary shenanigans they could get up to, but the nucular option would be out.
Posted by: Aaron | September 3, 2008 6:53 PM
@Fracai (#11)
Kudos to you for that comment!
Some people like to "Game" the election process, and use all sorts of nonsense to rationalize their decision. You vote for whom you WANT, not against what you DON'T WANT.
EXACTLY! That's what I've been saying on here for weeks now. I'm rather disappointed in PZ when he says "Man, I really regret that I have to vote for Obama...."
Best thing to do in this case is write yourself in (or someone you know that is qualified, but may not be on the ballot) -- At least then your vote is cast and no candidate is wrongfully receiving it. (Unless you live in Palm Beach County, in which case it really doesn't matter)
Which is just plain SILLY. The founding fathers would be ashamed of people that think like that.
@Martin (#30)
So you're suggesting we vote for Obama because of an Argumentum ad Baculum?
You know, I hear hell is a pretty awful place, and you'd be there for ETERNITY if you don't accept Christ as your savior. You better start praying now!
That's just ridiculous. If you want to vote for Obama because you agree with his platform, then by all means, go for it! But don't let McCain / Palin terrorize you into voting for a candidate you don't believe in.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 3, 2008 6:54 PM
The Chemist wrote:
If God can raise the dead, make universes and part waters you'd think a miracle like that would be child's play, and yet he writes: "Pray for Sarah Palin to win. (I am an idealist, but also a realist!)"
Maybe it's a free-will thing (in spite of God hardening Pharaoh's heart).
Posted by: scooter | September 3, 2008 6:54 PM
Mac
No wonder they are thrilled with Palin - ideologically she's right of Ghengis Khan.
Khan was a leftist, after conquering he wiped out all the landowners, clergy, and ruling class, then absorbed the artisans and peasants, usually offering a far better deal.
Right wingers do the opposite.
Posted by: marc buhler | September 3, 2008 6:58 PM
A couple of decades ago, a lady from a fundy church encouraged me to pray with her that "god would send me a sign...". The next week, she was sadly thrown from a horse and died a couple of days later. I was not at all convinced by the suggestion made to me a few days later that that was a sign, and I have to wonder to what extent those close to her might still blame me for "making" her god do that to her.
I'm sure I would have told her about an incident that could be seen as such a "sign" that happened a couple of years before that. I had a serious car smash, driving a car that had belonged somewhat previously to a nun. The car's owner, my then girlfriend, had pointed out to me a crucifix that was wedged between the dashboard and the windscreen she was not able to prise free. In the crash (a fully loaded, parked semi had rolled away and came out from a side street on to a busy main road), rather than hitting the brakes and spearing the truck around about the fuel tank, I had accelerated and sideswiped the front and got hammered between a delivery truck running alongside me and the renagade truck, but the momentum caried me on through.
After the accident, I found the crucifix had been knocked loose and was on the passenger seat next to me. (If I *ever* convert to fundy preaching, these two stories will get a lot of bible-spinning air time!)
Posted by: E.V. | September 3, 2008 7:02 PM
Where have all the fundie (trolls) gone? Has some modicum of rationality begun to seep into the minds of our frothing pharyngaloony drop-ins? Or are they all killfiled/in the dungeon? Perhaps they've become frackin' cracker fatigued and have gone to spread their
bullshitdogma elsewhere. No one? Not even the Texas concealed handgun goofball, tsk, tsk.Posted by: Chiropter | September 3, 2008 7:03 PM
Robert, #32: That said - voting should also be a pragmatic exercise. If you really don't want guy O to win, then by voting for some-random-guy instead of guy M (who you don't like, but can tolerate - esp. with his hot VP girl P), you diminish guy M's chances of winning and increase guy O's chances.
Speaking of pragmatic, if you live through a few more elections you will find out that this isn't a particularly effective argument to induce people to vote, so making this argument isn't a particularly pragmatic use of your time and energy. Maybe it would be if people were "rational" -- I dunno, there are so many value judgments that go into it that I don't know if it's really easy to figure out the "rational" choice to make -- but maybe it is.
Now in any single member district type of election (and the U.S. Presidency is an example of this where the single district is the entire nation), you are going to have sometimes one front runner who will most likely win, the best you can usually hope for is that there will be two candidates running neck-and-neck -- I don't know how many examples there are of three candidates in a virtual dead heat.
But in these cases, the people whose interests aren't being represented by the front runner(s) simply are often not going to be highly motivated to vote. It may be "irrational", but that's the way it seems to be.
Posted by: Christine | September 3, 2008 7:10 PM
"This isn't so bad -- I wish more radical Christians would take their faith more seriously and sit at home praying furiously and ineffectually. I urge them all to spend election day on bended knee before folded hands."
As I look back on my life as a fundie, from little girl to young adult, before I fell away from the faith, I prayed HARD for ALL republican presidents. By my calculation, 4 out of 6 ain't bad. I wrote about it recently under the title: "Family Values, My Ass!: The Inevitable Evolution of Evangelical Women in Politics"... my "hot-for-jesus former fundie" blog can be accessed via my name.
I believe Palin has the potential to help Some evangelicals/fundies to take a small step, though hypocritical yes, toward a more expansive view of women and their place in society. Some will be forced to soul search to the point of backing off from some of their beliefs, and some will soul search to the point of a more deeply rooted, gender-biased, faith.
A lot of ppl don't like to hear this, but I am optimistic about the potential of right-wingers to either see the light, or come closer to it. I have to be. I give my testimony from the other side... the dark side/ the Bright side... depending on who you talk to.
Though I write a satirical blog about my life with Jesus, I also think it is important to take the process of breaking away from the faith seriously, and with a great deal of patience. No atheist calling me "stupid" ever endeared me to their cause... fyi.
I'm not convinced that all right-wing christians are going to be okay with McCain's choice. I think the best reading we'll have on this will come after a few weekends of church, and Wednesday night bible studies. I could be wrong... but this could potentially splinter off a decent chunk of Fundies from even bothering to vote.
Posted by: E.V. | September 3, 2008 7:10 PM
Buhler?....Buhler?...
Lovely example of confirmation bias. Force fit the pieces together and disregard any that don't support what your building. Add a little here and smoothe out a little there in the retelling and voila! the supernatural is real!
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | September 3, 2008 7:18 PM
Yet another one who still hasn't understood the concept of voting against someone.
<sigh>
Electoral college.
It simply doesn't make sense to vote in a safe state. So people there don't vote. Abolish the electoral college, and watch participation rise to European levels (which is still pathetic, but not shockingly so).
Posted by: El Herring | September 3, 2008 7:24 PM
marc buhler #37: The thing about "signs" from god is that people will always tend to give their god the benefit of any doubt, especially after asking for a sign in the first place.
The fact is that the crucifix could easily have ended up on your passenger seat without any divine intervention at all, and of course, as far as I am concerned, that's exactly what happened, given the circumstances you describe. Now if the crucifix had been locked in the glove compartment, or in the boot (sorry, "trunk", is that right?) of the car to begin with, (unknown to you) and had floated impossibly to its final resting place, "divine intervention" would have been more credible.
But in actual fact there was a violent collision, the religious knick-knack (which you already knew was in the car) was thus jolted from its stuck position and catapulted across the interior of the vehicle to land - well it HAD to land somewhere, didn't it? And the passenger seat is, on the face of it, quite a large landing area. All easily explainable. But a "sign"? Not at all. An inevitable consequence, more like.
Posted by: True Bob | September 3, 2008 7:25 PM
Constitution Party? More like Constipation Party.
I actually guffawed when I read he thought he was a realist.
Posted by: Qwerty | September 3, 2008 7:30 PM
From another wingnut's website:
"The only thing that worries me is if I will be drawn into temptation to masturbate and fornicate by her [Sarah Palin's] charming, stunning looks."
http://calvinists4conservatism.wordpress.com/2008/09/01/sarah-palin-brings-atheist-daily-kos-to-its-knees/
Here's a link if you desire to ready more idiocy.
Posted by: True Bob | September 3, 2008 7:35 PM
Yeah, the nerve of her, not wearing a burka. Once again, an innocent though lust-filled male is destroyed by a woman.
Posted by: Kel | September 3, 2008 7:35 PM
IF every individual has free will to make a decision, then how can praying to God have any effect over the election? The only way God could have his will done is if he changed the thought process of some people. So what makes Fundie McNutjob think that God is allowing him to have a clear choice and not others?
Posted by: Kel | September 3, 2008 7:37 PM
Poe's law, seriously!Posted by: JoJo | September 3, 2008 7:38 PM
Having Palin on the ticket is an attempt by McCain to lure the fundamentalists and other conservatives who don't like him to vote. At least in one case, it may be working.
Is it Christlike for Jay Rogers and others like him to pray for someone's death? That doesn't seem like a good advertisement for Christianity to me.
Posted by: Farb | September 3, 2008 7:38 PM
The very bible these poseurs revere admonishes them, the presumably faithful, to do quite the opposite:
Romans 13:1-5
1 Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers: for there is no power but of God; and the (powers) that be are ordained of God.
2 Therefore he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God: and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment.
3 For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise from the same: 4 for he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore (ye) must needs be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience' sake. (ASV)
1 Timothy 2:1-2
1 I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men; 2 for kings and all that are in high place; that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and gravity. (ASV)
Titus 3:1-3
1 Put them in mind to be in subjection to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready unto every good work, 2 to speak evil of no man, not to be contentious, to be gentle, showing all meekness toward all men.
3 For we also once were foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another. (ASV)
And this passage was considered important enough to have parallels included in Mark and Luke, as well:
Matthew 22:16-21
16 And they send to him their disciples, with the Herodians, saying, Teacher, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, and carest not for any one: for thou regardest not the person of men.
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why make ye trial of me, ye hypocrites?
19 Show me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a denarius.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. (ASV)
Now, if the very scripture these self-proclaimed Christians revere admonishes them not only to pray for those in authority, but follow civil law, even as the great Roman persecutions against Christianity were beginning, then one has to question the genuine depth of their faith.
Then, one must ask whether they have the legitimate right to speak for that faith, since it seems obvious that they so clearly cherry-pick which scripture to follow.
Or, more simply, add to the bumper stickers I suggested earlier, namely:
My Saviour is a political dirty trickster
and
George W. Bush sinned for your deaths,
this one:
My Saviour is a hit man.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 3, 2008 7:44 PM
JoJo wrote:
But not so much in other cases:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/03/peggy-noonan-mike-murphy_n_123647.html
Of course not -- if it were, then PZ would never have posted it.
Posted by: Ian | September 3, 2008 7:49 PM
#34:
Ideally, yes, we should be able to cast a vote that aids the candidate(s) that we want and does not aid the candidates we do not want. Unfortunately, that is frequently not possible with the election system that we have. If that bothers you, I suggest that you apply your effort to getting the system to change. Trying to convince everyone else that they "should" cast their vote non-optimally seems rather futile.
How is that realistically any better than not voting at all? We don't just want people to vote; we want them to vote meaningfully.
Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | September 3, 2008 7:54 PM
If that's the case, they must be getting very frustrated with how many fauxgressive bloggers and pundits are attacking Palin as a woman instead of her horrible stand on the issues. Few women would have voted for Palin because she's a woman, but if the attacks on her gender continue the way they are, enough otherwise liberal women may just vote for her or will stay away from the voting booth period. There is still a lot of anger over the misogynistic attacks made toward Clinton but Pandora's box was opened and the usual suspects just can't help themselves going after Palin the same way. Not the smartest thing to do while asking for party unity at the same time. But I don't think the GOP are playing to lose here. Bringing Palin on was the smartest thing they've done yet. The misogyny it's exposing in way too many so-called liberals is one thing. Another is that to any objective observer, there really isn't that much difference in her governing experience compared to Obama's. That's not stopping Democrats from attacking her lack of experience, leaving them nowhere to go when his lack of experience is brought up. It's sad. The last thing the world needs is another Republican occupying the Oval Office right now but the Democrats haven't really been doing anything to earn votes beyond "We're not Bush" and "We're not Republicans".Posted by: Anri | September 3, 2008 7:56 PM
In re: wasted votes, and the lesser of two evils.
I suppose that one can look at this from either side. If you wish to look at your vote as a form of expression (no bad thing), then not paying any attention to the impact your vote might have on the election is certainly justified. You were asked you you want to be elected, and you answered.
On the other hand, if you're more concerned with the actual outcome of the election, and see your vote as a means of steering that outcome, than paying attention to who is within reaching distance of the finish line is vital. You've been asked to help decide who actually is going to be elected, and you answered.
I'm not really seeing any serious dishonor in either path.
(Speaking for myself, I believe that my vote is best spent in helping give the better person a larger mandate - but that's not the only, or perhaps even the best, answer - just mine.)
Posted by: Kel | September 3, 2008 8:00 PM
Well the Republicans are trying to do the same. They've taken off their republican hats and put on their American hats. They were very clear about what hats they were wearing.Posted by: The Chemist | September 3, 2008 8:07 PM
It's like 2004 all over again, except this time, the Dem's candidate is not a zombie.
Posted by: Annick | September 3, 2008 8:13 PM
So.... why doesn't he just pray for his sky faerie to make the Constitution Party win ? Why let reality stand in your way ?
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 3, 2008 8:14 PM
Tabby Lavalamp wrote:
So, is conservative talk radio host Dr. Laura enough of misogynistic liberal to inspire the spite vote? On her show she said:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/dr_laura_and_the_talk_radio_au.php
Posted by: tom j lawson | September 3, 2008 8:18 PM
Still, you cannot prove belief. When will the political game get serious and start doing polygraphs on "religious" candidates. Palin's father was a science teacher and says the family collected fossils on their camping trips. Surely some of that upbringing stuck, right? Maybe not.
Wait a minute. 2012 is supposed to be the year of the apocalypse! After McCain dies and she becomes Prez, she'll realize that she's not going to get a second term and she'll start launching nukes! So that's how it all ends...hmmm.
What are you going to do with your last four years? I'm going to learn Navajo, just for kicks.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 3, 2008 8:20 PM
Annick wrote:
Yet again I say it -- I think it's a free-will issue. God could, but will not play with people's free choices, thus our votes won't be changed.
Either that or the guy's just not thinking.
I'm not claiming to understand fundies, I'm just making a guess.
Posted by: MikeM | September 3, 2008 8:22 PM
They need to do a better job of staying away from open mics, that's for darn sure.
Posted by: Gotchaye | September 3, 2008 8:25 PM
Anri, I generally agree with you, but I'd note that the second form of voting is really just another way of expressing oneself. If voting 'pragmatically' were itself rational, it'd be somewhat justifiable against merely voting for whoever you felt like voting for, but voting (in national elections in the US, in the vast majority of states, and, possibly, in most or all swing states) is deeply irrational. Even supposing that the 'right' candidate winning is worth something like ten million dollars to an individual, there's no way that the expected value of his vote is worth the fifteen minutes it takes him to drive to the polls or the money he spends on gas to get there.
There's nothing wrong with voting for a candidate because he or she is the best of a bad bunch, or is the least objectionable of those candidates with a serious chance of winning, but let's not pretend that such a vote is meaningfully more likely than a 'Mickey Mouse' write-in to make any kind of difference. The benefit of voting is almost entirely psychological - some like to feel that they're making the 'best' choice while some like to feel that they're making the 'smartest' choice.
Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | September 3, 2008 8:28 PM
Nobody ever said that all the right-wingers would be smart enough to sit back and let fauxgressives do all the damage. "Dr." Laura clearly can't help but continue to advance her own regular agenda. The problem is that this sort of thing is expected from conservatives. If Rush Limbaugh says something misogynistic it's business as usual and isn't going to register as strongly. When Keith Olbermann did it, it was shocking and very disappointing.Posted by: Norman Doering | September 3, 2008 8:37 PM
Tabby Lavalamp wrote:
I missed that one. What did Keith Olbermann say?
Posted by: Nova | September 3, 2008 8:44 PM
Step 2 is flawed even when looked at from a Christian viewpoint. An election is one place where the Christian god even if he existed would be powerless, how could he influence the results without affecting free will?
Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | September 3, 2008 8:49 PM
http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/2008/04/keith-olbermann-you-are-misogynist-not.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/25/keith-olbermanns-idea-for_n_98557.html
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/02/23/everyone_loves_keith_olbermannexcept_me.php
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 3, 2008 8:51 PM
Nova wrote:
God did harden pharaoh's heart. He blinded Saul, changed his heart and turned him into Paul. The free-will thing seems to have some wiggle room.
Posted by: E in MD | September 3, 2008 8:58 PM
Well that is the OTHER reason why they nominated Palin. Because the wingnuts don't like McCain. They're planning on the "Well he might die two days in and then we'll get our person in the office." vote.
And the reason why she's female is because they want the Clinton hissy fit voters. It's not complicated. It is however sexist, elitist, religionist and very very cynical.
Posted by: Norman Doering | September 3, 2008 9:05 PM
Tabby Lavalamp linked examples of what Keith Olbermann said:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/25/keith-olbermanns-idea-for_n_98557.html
I actually did hear that one and I didn't think it was that bad. He would have said it about a male candidate too if it were one of them who wouldn't give it up for his favorite. The violence is just a metaphor.
Yea, on Paris and Spears he does show his dark side. He also says he doesn't want to do those stories but is forced to by his producers.
Posted by: khan | September 3, 2008 9:08 PM
OT for pz:
http://www.gocomics.com/looseparts/2008/09/02/
Posted by: Jeanette Garcia | September 3, 2008 9:10 PM
PZ, I have to admire your bravery. I have great difficulty looking at these moronic sites. I have a tendency to want to hang out with my own kind. However, I do believe we need to check out the dark side on occasion so we don't get too complacent.
Not the topic here, but must say this, No way does Palin, fill the spot for disenfranchised feminist women. Sorry, I am willing to wait for a real feminist rather than make do with woman who is totally in opposition to everything I believe in.
Posted by: Jeanette Garcia | September 3, 2008 9:19 PM
PZ, I have to admire your bravery. I have great difficulty looking at these moronic sites. I have a tendency to want to hang out with my own kind. However, I do believe we need to check out the dark side on occasion so we don't get too complacent.
Not the topic here, but must say this, No way does Palin, fill the spot for disenfranchised feminist women. Sorry, I am willing to wait for a real feminist rather than make do with woman who is totally in opposition to everything I believe in.
Posted by: ArcadeBoy | September 3, 2008 9:21 PM
Holy Schnikes. That lunatic Ixion at calvinists4conservatism is actually a Geocentrist. Just do a search for "Heliocentrism" on his blog. It will take your breath away.
It is Weapons-Grade Insanium.
I just cannot tell the real crazies from the parodies anymore.
FSM help us all.
Posted by: Jason | September 3, 2008 9:28 PM
Wow, is anyone watching the RNC? The people there are cheering on everything thats wrong with western civilization. Seeing them chant "Drill Now" just about made me puke.
The Republican National Convention... you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villiany.
Posted by: qedpro | September 3, 2008 9:29 PM
Sorry, I am willing to wait for a real feminist rather than make do with woman who is totally in opposition to everything I believe in.
I totally agree. This woman is everything I never want to be or have running the government. She's got that phony evangelical smile thing happening. She's the type that smiles to your face and then stabs you when you turn to leave. A women that you can never tell if she's off the rag or not. And I guess the men says she's pretty. I really don't think so. There's no real beauty. Her ugly on the inside shows right thru.
Posted by: JStein | September 3, 2008 9:34 PM
I think he just advocated for the death of a presidential candidate.
Oh, that's right, it's via prayer, so it doesn't mean anything.
Posted by: nobody | September 3, 2008 9:47 PM
assbucket