Skip to content

NQC & Ashcroft: Hypothesis Tested

September 7, 2011

Well as for my initial thoughts about Ashcroft being at NQC, I believe the Southern Gospel Yankee has proved my point on the previous thread below (and yes, even on her own blog).  I believe her to represent the majority in either liking the addition of a Republican politician, or at least not caring one way or the other versus the minority of those who are adamantly opposed to it.

I admit this was a creative way to allow her to be the antagonist (in which I really was the invisible antagonist, hence “Dividing An Invisible Line”) in this article, and let everyone visibly see that NQC is probably doing the right thing in the long run for attendance and attention.  Consider her the quasi-spokesperson for the NQC board.

Slow day on a Wednesday.

So I send my thanks to the Southern Gospel Yankee in finally being a contributor!  We probably agree more on politics than I let on…but certainly not everything…

  1. Well thank you… I think.

    By the way, guess which party I’ll be voting for in the general election.


    I quite honestly see staying home as a very real possibility.

    • Exercising your right to opinion but neglecting your right to vote…?


      Proud to be an American. Prouder to be a Christian. Wear it like a badge!

    • JSR permalink

      By not voting for the lesser of the two evils you essiently vote for the greater of the two evils. Sometimes you have to go vote against someone rather than for someone. So, while I have some Presidential candidates I would like to vote for in the general election I will definitely be voting against the current administration…and hope you will too, YGG.

      • Mathematically, those two things are actually not equivalent.

        I may vote against the current administration by voting for an independent candidate who stands for what I stand for. But

        You may find this article on the issue helpful (it was written during the ’08 election):

      • Ignore the hanging “But” in that comment. It would have been the beginning of a thought I changed my mind and decided not to complete.

      • JSR permalink

        While I appreciate people voting for independents whom they feel more comfortable with, I will have to say that those kind of voters put Bill Clinton in office. A vote for Ross Perot was a vote for Bill Clinton. If this administration is reelected it will very possibly be all the default votes Obama gets from those voting independent. So, all those conservative Christians who whine about the moral damage done to our county in the Clinton years (which includes me) don’t whine too much if you voted for Clinton through Perot.

      • While I understand that argument, I also feel in that method you cheat your deepest beliefs and convictions. Why not vote for the one who you share the most in common with? That being said, I can’t go against playing the political game either. At least your letting your voice be represented by a vote.

      • But that’s simply wrong. A vote against the Republican candidate simply is not equivalent to a vote for the Democratic candidate. Again, just do the math.

        I think too often Republicans will try to press other Republicans into voting for the Republican candidate, however unsatisfactory he is, because we “owe” that candidate our vote. But in reality, we don’t “owe” a vote to anybody. I’m not duty-bound to vote for the Republican simply because the Democrat is worse. Of course the Democrat is worse. The Democrat will always be worse. But that’s not really the core issue. The core issue, the core question, is can I in good conscience endorse somebody who doesn’t share my stance on, say, life? On marriage? I’m not saying I would never vote for somebody with whom I disagree on something. We obviously can’t agree on every single thing. But I have a few very basic standards, and any candidate to whom I give my vote must meet those standards, or I give it to somebody else. To say that I’m giving my vote to somebody else simply because I “feel more comfortable” with him trivializes that decision. It’s not about “feelings.” It’s about principles, objective right and objective wrong.

        I believe that by automatically voting Republican every time, we are encouraging the party in their slump towards leftism, because we are sending them the message that it really doesn’t matter how low they sink. They can always count on our vote.

      • I completely agree with you in Republicans encouraging the party towards leftism. That is proving itself to be true.

        I truly enjoy hearing your opinion. However, can you please make references to SPECIFIC Democratic voters or politicians, instead of lumping them together in a careless and narrow-minded point of view?

        For example, “of course Obama is worse” and not, “of course Democrats are worse, democrats are always worse”. That is fine. That’s like me saying “All Calvinists are mean and selfish”. Or “All Arminians don’t think and neglect to place their foundation on the Word of God”. Or “all Lutherans are seriously messed up in their theology”.

        Another good alternative is to try, “the majority of Democrats are worse”. Or “the majority of democrats are always worse”. That may be more closely linked to “the majority of Lutherans are seriously messed up in their theology (or at least in the practice of their theology”.

        As I said yesterday, I don’t think your point of view does complete justice to the truth of the matter. If you use the word “all”, when you need to use “all”, you’ll have no other word to use.

      • Sorry, I misspoke. I meant to say, specifically, a vote for somebody else besides the Republican rather than a vote against the Republican. Obviously we cannot literally push a “vote against” button (although that would be an interesting system).

      • JSR permalink

        In reality, I don’t think I completely agree with any of these candidates on some issues that are really big to me. You keep throwing out the math…true 1 vote for 3rd party doesn’t equal 1 vote for Obama. However, every conservative vote for a 3rd party candidate lowers the number of votes required for the sorry current administration to be reelected.

        I’m all for voting your conscience, especially in the primary. And I’m not in love with the Republican party. I would actually like to see the tea party completely take over the Republican Party or form a viable 3rd party. Until I see a third party candidate who can win I will be casting my vote with the candidate most likely to win who can shift the country back to the right…even if its not as much as I want.

      • FNR, try every Democrat who’s been a final candidate in the general election of our country for the past few decades. I’m sorry, but I refuse to modify what I have said. It is hardly careless or narrow-minded. It is based on what I can plainly see with my own two eyes both today and looking back over, yes, “history.” You should be able to see it too. I am somewhat puzzled and disappointed that, for whatever reason, you can’t. Ask anybody with a good moral compass and a deep grounding in history.

      • To elaborate a little bit, you say that you have found a so-called “niche group” of Democrats who are really committed conservatives at heart. While I still have my doubts as to just how far they would take those conservative sentiments once the rubber met the road, let us suppose for the sake of the argument that you are right, and there is a small group of Democrats like that out there.

        Our immediate context is the general election of the United States. Now, answer me truthfully: Are you going to claim with a straight face that any Democrat who is an outspoken and deeply committed conservative has one chance in a hundred of winning the nomination of his party for the general election? You’re savvy, and you’re not stupid. Of course a candidate like that would lose in the primaries—badly.

        So why are you insisting on saying that my statement “The Democrat will always be worse” in the context of a general election is careless and narrow-minded? We can see plainly through logic that even if we grant that there are “good” Democrats out there, no such Democrat would be in the picture in the context we are discussing. Therefore, your complaint is irrelevant.

      • I wasn’t talking about a general election specifically. I was talking about people. Down to earth, conservative people. Your political campaign is weak. And you’re not thinking logically through this. The reason I’m right is because I don’t claim to be right about everything. And the reason you’re wrong is because you put your claim on things. Therefore I’m disappointed that your logic is not worth thinking about. Because you’re a smart girl. You just overshoot the goat every once in a while. The context that I’m discussing really has nothing to do with a general election. It actually has to do with John Ashcroft at the NQC. So if my complaint was irrelevant, your context is irrelevant. And you can continue to prove how much you love it. I’d go re-write your article about it. You seem to be more passionate about it than you let on. 🙂

      • Well, I was talking about the general Presidential election specifically, and your latest complaint was against my using the phrase “the Democrat will always be worse” in the context of a general Presidential election. That’s exactly what you were saying, and anybody can go back and read your comment. Now that was a premise on my way to making a different point about how I was planning to vote, which was a side discussion prompted by JSR’s claim that I should vote Republican. But I don’t understand why you’re pretending that your complaint somehow made any logical sense.

        “The reason I’m right is because I don’t claim to be right about everything.”

        Think about that for a minute. You’re a smart fellow yourself, you just don’t think through things as clearly as you should. 😀

      • Actually I think it makes perfect sense. I’m right because I see that the world isn’t as black & white as we would like to believe. But aren’t we all right in our minds?

      • JSR permalink

        This is getting to be really entertaining. I’m guessing a live debate between you to at the NQC would be much more entertaining than John Ashcroft.

  2. DisneyGator permalink

    I read the Yankee blog, and I did like how the 3 groups were separated. The only thing I can disagree with is the third group being upset that a part of the show is not singing. Well, they can just walk over to an exhibition hall or hotel and catch some record label pushing a few groups. I, for one, like adding a little conversation in the middle of 168 straight hours of singing.It does help that I happen to like his brand of politics, and it does help that he was Attorney General during a time of war – not just some “republican politician”. I look forward to hearing some 9/11 stories from someone who was on the inside when it all went down.

    • I didn’t entirely sympathize with group three either, so I actually agree with your points here. You mentioned that there actually could be singing going on at the same time as the talk, which is yet another argument against the 3rd group.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: