If some people who join the team reserve the right to quit during the big game, why would those people think the team will want to work with them?
***The problem with your analogy is that the team is working towards a goal that is antithetical to some of the players, i.e. the front line that I keep coming back to.
Please answer Hank’s question:
Hank>>>But if my party’s standard bearer holds beliefs that are utterly antithetical to those which attracted me to the party in the first place, why should I support it?
***The problem with your analogy is that the team is working towards a goal that is antithetical to some of the players, i.e. the front line that I keep coming back to.
Please answer Hank’s question:
Hank>>>But if my party’s standard bearer holds beliefs that are utterly antithetical to those which attracted me to the party in the first place, why should I support it?
Kevmo:
I think you and I got this straightened out earlier, but I'll go ahead and answer here, too.
I never said anyone must support the team if for any reason they don't feel they should. It's not relevant to my point to keep pointing out that people who are bailing on the team think they have a good reason to do so.
My point, which I think you agree with to some extent, is that, regardless of what justifies quitting, it's still a gamble for the individual and the country. That's because, just like in football, if some players quit, the team still has to play the game. So it may try to get the players back, it may look for new players, but whatever it does it tries to find a way to win with what it's got.
Interestingly, this thread (link below) about something Rush said illustrates my point perfectly.
Rush made my point a year ago:
RUSH ARCHIVES: This notion that it doesn't matter who wins because the Democrats aren't going to have a big enough majority? That's going to lead to another thing that I will share with you. It's going to lead to the nomination of John McCain for the Republican presidential candidacy. In two years, you same people who will have helped bring about an ascension to power by the Democrats, are going to be so angry -- you're going to be so fed up -- over what they have tried to do, over the things they will maybe have accomplished, that you are going to demand power back, and you will accept anybody that you think has a chance of winning it. And right now, that looks like McCain, above anybody else -- who, I must tell you, is not a conservative. And so what are you probably going to end up doing? You're going to be so frustrated by 2008, and the thought of Hillary Clinton becoming president so obnoxious, so abhorrent; that in 2008 you will flush your precious principles down the drain and elect a Republican, precisely the kind of Republican you think you're running against now -- or you will at least nominate one. Who knows how that election will go? So the very principle that you are fighting here, if you succeed, you will be given a candidate who fits the very thing you're angry about: somebody who's not conservative enough but probably has the best chance of winning.
When we began this conversation, that's what I was addressing: WHY McCain is the nominee. It's not because of anti-Christian bigotry.
It's because conservatives bailed on the party in 2006 and now they're saying they are going to bail again. It's because conservatives barely voted for the more conservatives candidates in the primaries when they had every opportunity to do so.
So the party, which must has a nominee, and which exists for the purpose of winning elections, has no choice (from their point of view) but to try to find a way to win with what they got. And McCain has always said he's the man to bring in Independents and Reagan Democrats---IOW, he's the man who can provide some replacement players so the party can try to win this thing.
As Rush said:
In two years, you same people who will have helped bring about an ascension to power by the Democrats, are going to be so angry -- you're going to be so fed up -- over what they have tried to do, over the things they will maybe have accomplished, that you are going to demand power back, and you will accept anybody that you think has a chance of winning it.
This is WHY McCain is the nominee. Political parties exist to win. When the conservative way doesn't deliver, then the party (meaning: the majority of people voting in the primaries and lending support to candidates) does something else. That's all.
Rush goes on to make a point about voting for congresscritters, not president. But his analysis (and my analogy) is certainly something to think about.
Again, quitting may be justified, but the risk that the team will truly move on without those who quit (which would not be good for the country, IMHO) is real. That's all. Whether it's the coach or the players to blame, that's all.
***The problem with your analogy is that the team is working towards a goal that is antithetical to some of the players, i.e. the front line that I keep coming back to.
One last point on this, Kevmo.
Again, the players may be perfectly justified in quitting. However, that doesn't mean a hill of beans to the team. At some point, the team says "we're not going to rely on them and get in this lurch ever again."
You are saying "BUT --- BUT --- the quarterback walked off the field because the game plan was 'antithetical' to his personal goals."
I am saying the team says: "I don't care what the quarterback's problem was, you don't walk out during a big game; you handle your disagreement some other way, some other time. And I'll be damned if I or any other coach in this league wants to try to win a game with a quarterback who may get up and quit at any time."
That's just how a team would react, and at some point that's how a political party is going to react, especially to players who aren't delivering (votes) anyway.
I agree with Rush that we're in this situation in large part because conservatives quit the team in 2006, and were a nonfactor the only place it counts---the ballot box---in the primaries, leading to McCain. In my view, quitting last time brought nothing but a worse situation for conservatives, and I think there's a genuine risk that the same thing could happen in this election.