It’s that time again. The presidential election is upon us, and the usual suspects have begun to wag their fingers over voting choices — that is, at those who won’t vote for President Donald Trump but also won’t vote for Vice President Kamala Harris.
It’s a tedious exercise, and those engaging in it reduce themselves to moral scolds because they lack valid arguments. I’m talking about the strain of Never Trumpers who have decided to become Democrats without calling themselves Democrats.
Charlie Sykes, formerly of the Bulwark, wrote an article for the Atlantic in which he begins with a flat-out lie. He writes, “When the Never Trump movement emerged in 2016, it wasn’t always clear what never meant.”
Sure it was. It meant never voting for Trump. It was simple, and it remains that way. Some “conservatives,” at some point, decided that it was too much work to bring the Republican Party back to the era defined by the likes of Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman, so they jumped to the other side while claiming to maintain their supposed principles.
The resurrection of the misleading “binary choice” rhetoric, designed to pressure individuals into a decision, is vital to this narrative. However, the truth is that the choice is yours: Trump, Harris, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Jill Stein, Cornel West, or abstaining. That’s not “binary.”
Sykes also writes, “Harris is far from their first choice, but when your kitchen is in flames, you reach for whatever extinguisher is at hand.”
If that’s familiar, it’s only because Sykes isn’t very original. All he’s doing is echoing Michael Anton’s 2016 “The Flight 93 Election” essay. In it, Anton argued that not voting for Trump was akin to the heroes of the 9/11 terrorist attacks staying seated on Flight 93 instead of storming the cockpit as they did. The plane still crashed, but they took that chance. Sykes is arguing: Grab whatever fire extinguisher you can because if you don’t, the house will burn down.
The problem is no matter what you think of Trump, the idea that Harris is an acceptable alternative is ridiculous. It is not merely an issue of a difference in philosophy about taxes or spending. Harris backs the Biden plan to upend the Supreme Court with term limits because the president doesn’t like the justices’ recent decisions.
It’s a departure from President Joe Biden’s nearly 50 years in elective office and can only be described as radical. And it’s disqualifying. Arguing that it “won’t pass” doesn’t cut it. Whether or not this plan materializes, it is an idea that flies in the face of the constitutional order, as does the Biden administration’s college debt forgiveness.
When running for the 2020 nomination, Harris said that she would give Congress 100 days to take specific steps or she would take them herself. But Congress does not answer to the president. Harris, under the guise of a “mandatory buyback,” also supported confiscating AR-15 rifles. That flies in the face of not only the Second Amendment but the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment as well. Harris’s campaign recently said she no longer supports confiscation, but why should anyone believe her?
“You must vote for Kamala Harris” is a lazy person’s attempt at persuasion. Instead of making a valid argument and putting the onus on Harris to sell herself to the voting public, people such as Sykes want to take credit if Kamala wins but blame those who sit out or vote for a third party if she loses.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Contrary to what Sykes and others think, the country will not become a dictatorship if Trump wins. I have faith in our system, even if some do not. With all the nation went through in the past, from the Civil War to two World Wars, the Cold War, the Korean War, the civil rights movement, multiple presidential assassinations, the Vietnam War, Watergate, and much more, I refuse to sit around in a state of fear over a second Trump administration.
The house is not burning down. If you want to vote for Harris, go ahead. But don’t say I have an obligation to do the same.
Andrea Ruth is a contributor to the Washington Examiner magazine.
2024-08-03 10:00:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2F3108645%2Fanti-trump-shouldnt-mean-pro-harris%2F?w=600&h=450, It’s that time again. The presidential election is upon us, and the usual suspects have begun to wag their fingers over voting choices — that is, at those who won’t vote for President Donald Trump but also won’t vote for Vice President Kamala Harris. It’s a tedious exercise, and those engaging in it reduce themselves,
It’s that time again. The presidential election is upon us, and the usual suspects have begun to wag their fingers over voting choices — that is, at those who won’t vote for President Donald Trump but also won’t vote for Vice President Kamala Harris.
It’s a tedious exercise, and those engaging in it reduce themselves to moral scolds because they lack valid arguments. I’m talking about the strain of Never Trumpers who have decided to become Democrats without calling themselves Democrats.
Charlie Sykes, formerly of the Bulwark, wrote an article for the Atlantic in which he begins with a flat-out lie. He writes, “When the Never Trump movement emerged in 2016, it wasn’t always clear what never meant.”
Sure it was. It meant never voting for Trump. It was simple, and it remains that way. Some “conservatives,” at some point, decided that it was too much work to bring the Republican Party back to the era defined by the likes of Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman, so they jumped to the other side while claiming to maintain their supposed principles.
The resurrection of the misleading “binary choice” rhetoric, designed to pressure individuals into a decision, is vital to this narrative. However, the truth is that the choice is yours: Trump, Harris, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Jill Stein, Cornel West, or abstaining. That’s not “binary.”
Sykes also writes, “Harris is far from their first choice, but when your kitchen is in flames, you reach for whatever extinguisher is at hand.”
If that’s familiar, it’s only because Sykes isn’t very original. All he’s doing is echoing Michael Anton’s 2016 “The Flight 93 Election” essay. In it, Anton argued that not voting for Trump was akin to the heroes of the 9/11 terrorist attacks staying seated on Flight 93 instead of storming the cockpit as they did. The plane still crashed, but they took that chance. Sykes is arguing: Grab whatever fire extinguisher you can because if you don’t, the house will burn down.
The problem is no matter what you think of Trump, the idea that Harris is an acceptable alternative is ridiculous. It is not merely an issue of a difference in philosophy about taxes or spending. Harris backs the Biden plan to upend the Supreme Court with term limits because the president doesn’t like the justices’ recent decisions.
It’s a departure from President Joe Biden’s nearly 50 years in elective office and can only be described as radical. And it’s disqualifying. Arguing that it “won’t pass” doesn’t cut it. Whether or not this plan materializes, it is an idea that flies in the face of the constitutional order, as does the Biden administration’s college debt forgiveness.
When running for the 2020 nomination, Harris said that she would give Congress 100 days to take specific steps or she would take them herself. But Congress does not answer to the president. Harris, under the guise of a “mandatory buyback,” also supported confiscating AR-15 rifles. That flies in the face of not only the Second Amendment but the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment as well. Harris’s campaign recently said she no longer supports confiscation, but why should anyone believe her?
“You must vote for Kamala Harris” is a lazy person’s attempt at persuasion. Instead of making a valid argument and putting the onus on Harris to sell herself to the voting public, people such as Sykes want to take credit if Kamala wins but blame those who sit out or vote for a third party if she loses.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Contrary to what Sykes and others think, the country will not become a dictatorship if Trump wins. I have faith in our system, even if some do not. With all the nation went through in the past, from the Civil War to two World Wars, the Cold War, the Korean War, the civil rights movement, multiple presidential assassinations, the Vietnam War, Watergate, and much more, I refuse to sit around in a state of fear over a second Trump administration.
The house is not burning down. If you want to vote for Harris, go ahead. But don’t say I have an obligation to do the same.
Andrea Ruth is a contributor to the Washington Examiner magazine.
, It’s that time again. The presidential election is upon us, and the usual suspects have begun to wag their fingers over voting choices — that is, at those who won’t vote for President Donald Trump but also won’t vote for Vice President Kamala Harris. It’s a tedious exercise, and those engaging in it reduce themselves to moral scolds because they lack valid arguments. I’m talking about the strain of Never Trumpers who have decided to become Democrats without calling themselves Democrats. Charlie Sykes, formerly of the Bulwark, wrote an article for the Atlantic in which he begins with a flat-out lie. He writes, “When the Never Trump movement emerged in 2016, it wasn’t always clear what never meant.” Sure it was. It meant never voting for Trump. It was simple, and it remains that way. Some “conservatives,” at some point, decided that it was too much work to bring the Republican Party back to the era defined by the likes of Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman, so they jumped to the other side while claiming to maintain their supposed principles. The resurrection of the misleading “binary choice” rhetoric, designed to pressure individuals into a decision, is vital to this narrative. However, the truth is that the choice is yours: Trump, Harris, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Jill Stein, Cornel West, or abstaining. That’s not “binary.” Sykes also writes, “Harris is far from their first choice, but when your kitchen is in flames, you reach for whatever extinguisher is at hand.” If that’s familiar, it’s only because Sykes isn’t very original. All he’s doing is echoing Michael Anton’s 2016 “The Flight 93 Election” essay. In it, Anton argued that not voting for Trump was akin to the heroes of the 9/11 terrorist attacks staying seated on Flight 93 instead of storming the cockpit as they did. The plane still crashed, but they took that chance. Sykes is arguing: Grab whatever fire extinguisher you can because if you don’t, the house will burn down. The problem is no matter what you think of Trump, the idea that Harris is an acceptable alternative is ridiculous. It is not merely an issue of a difference in philosophy about taxes or spending. Harris backs the Biden plan to upend the Supreme Court with term limits because the president doesn’t like the justices’ recent decisions. It’s a departure from President Joe Biden’s nearly 50 years in elective office and can only be described as radical. And it’s disqualifying. Arguing that it “won’t pass” doesn’t cut it. Whether or not this plan materializes, it is an idea that flies in the face of the constitutional order, as does the Biden administration’s college debt forgiveness. When running for the 2020 nomination, Harris said that she would give Congress 100 days to take specific steps or she would take them herself. But Congress does not answer to the president. Harris, under the guise of a “mandatory buyback,” also supported confiscating AR-15 rifles. That flies in the face of not only the Second Amendment but the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment as well. Harris’s campaign recently said she no longer supports confiscation, but why should anyone believe her? “You must vote for Kamala Harris” is a lazy person’s attempt at persuasion. Instead of making a valid argument and putting the onus on Harris to sell herself to the voting public, people such as Sykes want to take credit if Kamala wins but blame those who sit out or vote for a third party if she loses. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Contrary to what Sykes and others think, the country will not become a dictatorship if Trump wins. I have faith in our system, even if some do not. With all the nation went through in the past, from the Civil War to two World Wars, the Cold War, the Korean War, the civil rights movement, multiple presidential assassinations, the Vietnam War, Watergate, and much more, I refuse to sit around in a state of fear over a second Trump administration. The house is not burning down. If you want to vote for Harris, go ahead. But don’t say I have an obligation to do the same. Andrea Ruth is a contributor to the Washington Examiner magazine., , 
, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/ap-kamala-harris-event-080224.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Andrea Ruth,
