Damn you Dale Ahlquist!!!!

Ahlquist horns in on my awesome kingmaking powers:

Look, bub. Everybody knows that I bear sole responsibility for the re-election of Barack Obama. By using my mighty blog to say, “Don’t vote for Barack Obama–and don’t vote for Mitt Romney” I was obviously really saying “Vote for Barack Obama”. And given my Svengali-like grip on the minds of millions my subliminal message was heard and the masses obeyed my will as good little minions should. Puny Dale Ahlquist gets none of the credit! It is mine! All mine! Do you hear? Fools! I will destroy you all!

And don’t let me hear any of that “Shouldn’t the Party of Personal Responsibility consider the possibility that the problem was not with some blogger almost nobody in America reads but with, you know, nominating a cynical duplicitous liar who was a wholly-owned subidiary of crony corporate interests?” NO! It was me! Me and my awesome power!!!!! Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!!

  • http://www.chesterton.org Sean P. Dailey

    Duel at dawn tomorrow for the right to be the Sole Man Responsible for Four More Years of Barack Obama!

    • http://jpsweekly.wordpress.com Jeremiah Palm

      Who should the seconds be, Sean?

  • ivan_the_mad

    Yeah … there were some cranky letters to the editor in the recent issue. Apparently they didn’t read the Election Super Fun Pak.

  • Jmac

    These people are too much. Because of course all of us naturally WOULD have voted for [insert GOP's candidate] if we hadn’t been led astray. This is the little assumption that pisses me off the most. My vote never was R-Money’s or Obama’s to lose in the first place.

    But I suppose it’s easier to just emote and accuse the other guy of bad reasoning, now isn’t it. :)

  • http://asensiblelife.com Joe Anderson

    Funny!

    I am not blind to the fact that Mr. Ahlquist was not alone, as we can see here. But his way of thinking, this way of thinking, this rejection of the good in favor of the ideal (which we will never get) has landed us with a second term for a president who is the most pro death president in U.S. history.

    We can talk about how we didn’t like Romney because he wasn’t the perfect distributist president (though his support for small business did indicate he would have been much better at furthering an authentically just economy that President Obama) and we can moan and groan with all the talking points we receive from the Main Stream Media but in the end we were called upon in THIS election (not the ideal election of our imaginations) to vote FOR the candidate that would protect innocent life best, support authentic marriage best and support religious liberty best. There is NO doubt who that candidate was.

    I acknowledge that Romney was not the greatest candidate but the reality is that a failure to vote for him (notice I say vote FOR Romney, not simply withhold vote from Obama) was a failure to act positively on the side of the most important issues of our day.

    So for those of you who think your distributism or your peace and justice are more important than life, marriage and religious liberty – this next four years is on you!

    • ivan_the_mad

      A false argument and a false dichotomy! Failarious!

      • http://asensiblelife.com Joe Anderson

        If you mean by false dichotomy that authentic distributism and authentic Catholic social justice are not opposed to the promotion of life, marriage and religious liberty then you are correct. However, there are many voters whose misunderstanding of distributive justice and Catholic social teaching leads them to vote in favor of these false visions and in opposition to the moral absolutes of our day – again – life, marriage and religious liberty.

        • Leo Schwartz

          Joe,

          Your argument is flawed because it puts the responsibility for Obama’s election on those of us who refused to vote for Romney or Obama. The logic doesn’t play out. Even if everyone who voted third party/write-in voted for Romney instead (including those who voted Green Party or any other party for reasons radically different than those proposed by Mark and Dale), *Obama still would have won the election.*

          Although I can’t remember from the Ahlquist piece, I know that Mark has never been a strong advocate of not voting (and I don’t think Ahlquist advocated it either). He has said that he would not be voting Romney/Obama. Mark has also said on numerous occasions that he can understand people who vote for Romney as the lesser evil, but his conscience and the evidence lead him elsewhere.

          So, how are these men responsible for Obama’s reelection?

          • http://asensiblelife.com Joe Anderson

            Mr. Schwartz,
            You augment my point, a point I made before the election and in my comments above. A failure to support Romney, to actually vote FOR Romney, was indeed a failure to act effectively in opposition to the current administration. Was a non-vote (or, what equates to the same thing, a vote for a non-viable candidate) as bad as voting for Obama? No, it was better by half. But it was also worse by half than voting for the only candidate in the general election who had a chance of unseating this regime of death and religious oppression.

            • Leo Schwartz

              “You augment my point, a point I made before the election and in my comments above.”

              The original point that started this post, the one you made on Twitter, was that Gilbert Mag and Dale Ahlquist were responsible for Obama’s second term. I was merely pointing out that the numbers don’t support your theory.

              “A failure to support Romney, to actually vote FOR Romney, was indeed a failure to act effectively in opposition to the current administration.”

              The ends don’t justify the means. I don’t need a perfect candidate, I’ll settle for one that is more good than bad. At least then I can make a double effect argument while accepting the bad that comes along with voting for the good. I did not see that in Romney, therefor I didn’t vote for him.

              “But it was also worse by half than voting for the only candidate in the general election who had a chance of unseating this regime of death and religious oppression.”

              We have to vote for a lizard or the wrong lizard may win!

        • Mark Shea

          Romney supported abortion for “the health of the mother” (i.e., “always). So forget life. He supported gay adoption. If you think he cared about gay marriage, I have a bridge to sell you. And not only did he compel Catholic hospitals to dispense the morning after pill, he made it clear in the last debate that he totally agreed with Obama that employers should be compelled to obey the HHS mandate. The only thing he added to the trifecta of opposition to life marriage and religious liberty was his zeal for adding torture to the Executive current program of drone strikes on civilians. Oh, and more efficient crony capitalism and screwing of the workers.

  • http://www.distributistreview.com Richard Aleman

    “So for those of you who think your distributism or your peace and justice are more important than life, marriage and religious liberty – this next four years is on you!”

    Actually, distributists were the ones who actually stood up for marriage. Not Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann or the GOP elite.

    • http://asensiblelife.com Joe Anderson

      Mr. Aleman,

      Your point does not rebut my argument. I am grateful that distributists stood up for marriage.

      I am also sorrowful that many individuals, on the basis of their beliefs (rightly or wrongly held) about distributism and social justice, failed to do all in their power to unseat the current administration, one known for its attacks on innocent life, marriage and religious liberty.

      I agree with Mr. Shea, Mr. Ahlquist, you and everyone else here that Mr. Romney was a deeply flawed candidate. However, I am just sorry that for four years our country will suffer the consequences of the judgment that many folks made that it was better to stand on the sidelines than to work for an imperative moral good. We will see more babies killed in a 2nd Obama administration than we would otherwise have seen. We will see an administration that continues to ignore its duty to defend the Defense of Marriage Act. We will see the full implementation of a socialized health care system that stands in the way of individuals’ rights to act according to their consciences.

  • http://asensiblelife.com Joe Anderson

    Mr. Shea and all,

    I thank you for the opportunity to correspond on this topic. I was trying to get someone’s attention within the Cheston elite and I hope I did. Personally, I fear that the representation of Chestertonian thought in the United States of America may be under the control a small number of individuals and that those individuals are not always of necessity correct, particularly when it comes to the practical activity that should flow from our beliefs.

    I am also frustrated that I attempted to get in touch with the editorial staff o Gilbert Magazine before the election when there was an opportunity to sway a few votes (and a few votes in a few key states is what we needed here). I failed.

    The fact of the matter is that this election is done. There’s nothing we can do about that now. However, we do need to be looking forward to 2014 and 2016. We will have an opportunity at that time to impact the primary elections and get the best candidates we can into the general elections. Between now and then we need to form the electorate in authentic social justice. Let’s work on this together.

    • ivan_the_mad

      “particularly when it comes to the practical activity that should flow from our beliefs.”

      Think about that. Think about that really hard, because your conclusion that “we all ought to have voted for Romney” is *a* prudential judgement, not an absolute.

    • Mark Shea

      I fear that the representation of Chestertonian thought in the United States of America may be under the control a small number of individuals and that those individuals are not always of necessity correct, particularly when it comes to the practical activity that should flow from our beliefs.

      With respect, think about what you are saying. Of *course* the representation of Chestertonian thought is “under the control” (I think you mean “talked about”) by a small number of people. Chesterton is only familiar to a small number of people. The percentage of these who care about Chesterton is smaller. And the percentage of these who are “President of the American Chesterton Society” is really quite small. That does not constitute a conspiracy.

      But since, as you note, the number of Chestertonians is quite small, this means that the impact of Gilbert on the election was…. really small. So the question is: why are you wasting so much energy on the little tiny Chesterton Society instead of focusing on the real problem: a party system that barfs up hairballs like Mitt Romney and then tries to force people of conscience to muscle down the gag reflex and vote for them. Why not spend your energy on the broken party system instead of the sane Chestertonians?

  • Elmwood

    I’m just relieved that we don’t have to live under a mormon president.

    • ivan_the_mad

      Please tell me that’s a joke in poor taste.

  • Cantorboy

    Mark,
    I think it is so cool that at the same time *everybody* knows you singlehandedly reinstalled Pres. Obama for a second term, *nobody* even knows who you are! What awesome dark powers!
    By the way, are you actually in charge of deciding who is on his kill list? (Everybody thinks so…)

    • Mark Shea

      Yes. Yes I am.

      • MaryS

        Yikes! Time to put something in the tin cup!

  • http://asensiblelife.com Joe Anderson

    “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: GOD will not hold us innocent. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”—Bonhoeffer

    My summary of the Boycott Episode here: http://shar.es/41qfI

    Peace and Happy New Year!

    Joe


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X