And if you don't agree with his roadmap 100%, you're not a "real conservative", whatever that means. What a horribly arrogant little screed - I'm almost sorry I missed it when it was fresh.
Since the original author of that thread is no longer with us, you can take his place, if you like. Let me introduce myself - hello, I'm the Republican candidate for Congress for your district. How are you today?
The reason I'm here today is to talk to you about a certain set of voters, those voters questioning my conservative principles because I sometimes take a pragmatic, incremental road to implementing a conservative agenda. Now, you may disagree with my characterization of what I'm up to, but that's not really what I want to talk about. What I want to talk about is that set of voters who are publicly trying to flex their muscles in order to steer the ship of state in their preferred direction, using their preferred methods. Recently, one of those voters stated that his vote should not be taken for granted, and that he would require candidates who wished his votes to "bid" for it, in the form of platforms that drew ever closer to his personal political preferences. And if his bid is not met, he'll simply stay home and sit out the election this fall.
Now, as a candidate, I certainly respect the right of voters to vote for whomever they see fit, for whatever reasons they see fit - that's one of the great things about this country, after all. But what's really implied by this sort of thing is an assertion that a particular voter is inherently indispensible. Based on that belief, that voter is, in fact, making a veiled threat to insure the defeat of candidates he finds unacceptable, by simply staying home.
This is certainly an intriguing notion, without a doubt. But it occurs to me that the voter who made such a proposal isn't really putting his assertions to the test - he isn't willing, apparently, to actually risk anything in making such assertions. By that, I mean that he demands 100% of his particular minimum agenda be implemented, or no conservative anywhere will have any of it - it's an all or nothing proposal. Either he gets everything he wants, or he forces everyone else to take nothing at all.
But what if he actually put the value of his vote to the test, by risking the thing he seem to dread most, far more than he dreads any liberal - moderation and incrementalism? After all, I dispute his basic assertion, that he is as indispensible as he thinks he is, so why not put it to a real test?
So, with that in mind, here's the counteroffer I make. I provisionally accept the aforementioned voter's minimum bid - in exchange for his vote, I will agree to implement every one of his proposals to the very best of my ability. But by doing so, I'm taking a risk - I may sign on to his agenda, only to be proven right in my concern that his vote isn't as valuable as he says it is. Or even worse, I may find that signing on to his agenda causes the liberal candidate to be elected, in which case he'll have done more harm than good.
And if I'm taking a risk, it's only fair he should take a risk as well, besides just the risk that my liberal opponent will be elected. So when I say "provisionally", what I mean is, in exchange for his vote, I will, if elected, implement every one of his proposals to the best of my ability, but if and only if I win by exactly one vote. Ater all, if I win by more than that, I didn't really need him, and the value of his vote is precisely as imaginary as I suspect it is. And in that case, he gets nothing of his agenda, now and forever - he'll never get anything from me, except what I see fit to give him. And he'll be stuck with yet another middle-of-the-road pragmatist, the kind he so loves to hate.
So how's that deal? He can prove that he's as important as he claims he is, and thereby get what he wants, or he can get stuck with exactly the thing he appears to hate most - folks like me. Do you suppose he'll take that bet, that he's as confident of his importance as he appears to be?