BigBadBrian
04-12-2006, 06:40 PM
The new 'Republicans vote on Wednesday' game
Apr 12, 2006
by Dustin Hawkins
We’ve all seen the e-mail sent out days before an election: “Democrats vote on Tuesday, Republicans vote on Wednesday. Don’t forget to vote! Wink, wink.” Or vice versa. Republicans can be just as juvenile. Generally speaking, such “friendly reminders” are sent as a joke, which then may or may not actually trick a few people. Probably those who are tricked are better off not voting anyway, but that is another point altogether. (In case you haven’t voted recently, everyone votes on Tuesday.)
But there seems to be a new “Republicans vote on Wednesday” taking form in time for the 2006 election. This effort targets grassroots conservatives known for their passionate views about issues who may be open to a grassroots voting rebellion. But the effort is being led, or at the very least aided, by liberals pretending to be grassroots conservatives, as opposed to actual grassroots conservatives themselves.
The premise follows a scheme previously found most often on talk radio programs: a liberal activist calls a conservative radio host, such as Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham, and delivers the line: “I’ve been voting Republican for 30 years, but I’ve finally had it and I’m not voting this year.” Or my favorite: “I’m a Reagan Republican, but I’m fed up and voting for John Kerry.” (Because that is what Reagan Republicans would do, vote for John Kerry.) At this point, the host usually asks a couple of questions and it becomes painfully obvious that the supposed Reagan Republican has probably never voted for anyone left of Michael Dukakis.
The intentions are clear: the caller hopes to make it appear as though there is already a large uprising of conservatives who are rebelling against GOP candidates, and thus, wishes to incite other Republicans to pick up the same attitude and pass it along, leading to the Democrat becoming more competitive. The successes of such a strategy on voting habits are unclear, especially given that the conservative radio host often refutes the caller’s talking points.
But the pretend-conservative act is being carried onto a whole new playing field, one that has become wildly influential over the past few years and one that does not stand to be instantly recognized as a fake. That playing field is the blogosphere, which is then used in conjunction with massive e-mailings to “spread the word” (as one e-mailer insisted I do to my readers/e-mail list) to other conservatives.
The concept is the same: the blog or e-mail claims, first, that the said writer has been a conservative for years and that they have “had it with Republicans.” They then point to an issue that conservatives would likely be upset about such as excessive spending, immigration, or the expansion of government. Their supposed rage over the issue has convinced them to either not show up to vote in 2006, or, in order to really show Republicans, vote for the Democrat instead.
The blogs and e-mails are convincing in their wording and could incite the sort of reaction that occurred following the Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court. Of course, any liberal could read Free Republic and find out what’s irritating conservatives this week, grab a handful of phrases, and toss it on their “I’m a conservative but voting for a Democratic because of (insert issue here)” blog. After tossing in a few posts about the evils of Hillary Clinton and abortion, the blog is now being run by a bona-fide “conservative.” A few e-mails and link connections later, the message of conservatives voting against Republicans is spread.
Now, I won’t dispute that there are probably some conservatives that might actually sit out the election or vote for a third party candidate, but probably not enough to actually swing an election. (Unless of course a “conservative” grassroots effort gets well-underway to change that.) What I do dispute is the idea that such an idea is already widespread. Last week alone I received more than ten e-mails or links to recently created blogs that pretty much say the same thing, and it is only April.
One “conservative” e-mailer and blogger, later found to be a fraud, started by saying that over a dozen of his conservative friends were going to campaign against their Republican candidate (one in a tight race) because of his stance on immigration, and another dozen of his friends had already stated they would vote against him. The blog had been up less than a month, adding to my suspicions.
I have more than a handful of conservative friends and surprisingly – or not so surprisingly – not one has taken such a position, despite our shared frustrations over many Republicans in the House and Senate. In general, my acquaintances take the position that it is better to vote for someone who is good on 8 out of 10 issues than bad on 9 out of ten.
Curious about the e-mail, I began a back-and-forth emailing with the “grassroots conservative,” pretended to agree with him, and two days later it became painfully obvious that he was far from a grassroots conservative. When I called the blogger out on his bogus scheme, he responded only with: “Win some, lose some.” The election games have begun.
Link (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/DustinHawkins/2006/04/12/193287.html)
Apr 12, 2006
by Dustin Hawkins
We’ve all seen the e-mail sent out days before an election: “Democrats vote on Tuesday, Republicans vote on Wednesday. Don’t forget to vote! Wink, wink.” Or vice versa. Republicans can be just as juvenile. Generally speaking, such “friendly reminders” are sent as a joke, which then may or may not actually trick a few people. Probably those who are tricked are better off not voting anyway, but that is another point altogether. (In case you haven’t voted recently, everyone votes on Tuesday.)
But there seems to be a new “Republicans vote on Wednesday” taking form in time for the 2006 election. This effort targets grassroots conservatives known for their passionate views about issues who may be open to a grassroots voting rebellion. But the effort is being led, or at the very least aided, by liberals pretending to be grassroots conservatives, as opposed to actual grassroots conservatives themselves.
The premise follows a scheme previously found most often on talk radio programs: a liberal activist calls a conservative radio host, such as Rush Limbaugh or Laura Ingraham, and delivers the line: “I’ve been voting Republican for 30 years, but I’ve finally had it and I’m not voting this year.” Or my favorite: “I’m a Reagan Republican, but I’m fed up and voting for John Kerry.” (Because that is what Reagan Republicans would do, vote for John Kerry.) At this point, the host usually asks a couple of questions and it becomes painfully obvious that the supposed Reagan Republican has probably never voted for anyone left of Michael Dukakis.
The intentions are clear: the caller hopes to make it appear as though there is already a large uprising of conservatives who are rebelling against GOP candidates, and thus, wishes to incite other Republicans to pick up the same attitude and pass it along, leading to the Democrat becoming more competitive. The successes of such a strategy on voting habits are unclear, especially given that the conservative radio host often refutes the caller’s talking points.
But the pretend-conservative act is being carried onto a whole new playing field, one that has become wildly influential over the past few years and one that does not stand to be instantly recognized as a fake. That playing field is the blogosphere, which is then used in conjunction with massive e-mailings to “spread the word” (as one e-mailer insisted I do to my readers/e-mail list) to other conservatives.
The concept is the same: the blog or e-mail claims, first, that the said writer has been a conservative for years and that they have “had it with Republicans.” They then point to an issue that conservatives would likely be upset about such as excessive spending, immigration, or the expansion of government. Their supposed rage over the issue has convinced them to either not show up to vote in 2006, or, in order to really show Republicans, vote for the Democrat instead.
The blogs and e-mails are convincing in their wording and could incite the sort of reaction that occurred following the Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court. Of course, any liberal could read Free Republic and find out what’s irritating conservatives this week, grab a handful of phrases, and toss it on their “I’m a conservative but voting for a Democratic because of (insert issue here)” blog. After tossing in a few posts about the evils of Hillary Clinton and abortion, the blog is now being run by a bona-fide “conservative.” A few e-mails and link connections later, the message of conservatives voting against Republicans is spread.
Now, I won’t dispute that there are probably some conservatives that might actually sit out the election or vote for a third party candidate, but probably not enough to actually swing an election. (Unless of course a “conservative” grassroots effort gets well-underway to change that.) What I do dispute is the idea that such an idea is already widespread. Last week alone I received more than ten e-mails or links to recently created blogs that pretty much say the same thing, and it is only April.
One “conservative” e-mailer and blogger, later found to be a fraud, started by saying that over a dozen of his conservative friends were going to campaign against their Republican candidate (one in a tight race) because of his stance on immigration, and another dozen of his friends had already stated they would vote against him. The blog had been up less than a month, adding to my suspicions.
I have more than a handful of conservative friends and surprisingly – or not so surprisingly – not one has taken such a position, despite our shared frustrations over many Republicans in the House and Senate. In general, my acquaintances take the position that it is better to vote for someone who is good on 8 out of 10 issues than bad on 9 out of ten.
Curious about the e-mail, I began a back-and-forth emailing with the “grassroots conservative,” pretended to agree with him, and two days later it became painfully obvious that he was far from a grassroots conservative. When I called the blogger out on his bogus scheme, he responded only with: “Win some, lose some.” The election games have begun.
Link (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/DustinHawkins/2006/04/12/193287.html)