Nothing here about the record multi-TRILLION dollar debt, torture, massive expansion of government, the many republicans involved in scandals, "Heckuva job Brownie", border (in)security, etc, etc, etc.
Am I the only one who is not voting a straight party ticket and who is voting for individual candidates and not parties?
I'm currently planning on voting for Schwarzenegger (R) for governor, Garamendi (D) for Lt. Governor, Bowen (D) for Secretary of State, Chiang (D) for Controller, Smithson (L) for Treasurer, Poochigian (R) for Attorney General, Poizner (R) for Insurance Commissioner, Feinstein (D) for Senate, Eshoo (D) for the House, and Ruskin (D) for the Assembly.
I don't think I've ever voted a straight party ticket, and I'm unconvinced by either of your rationales that I should start.
Straight party tickets are crazy. But then again, the human race was never too rational to begin with. Can't do anything about it. It'll all get resolved in the end, one way or another.
While Iraq may have been a misstep (as seen by some) it has opened up a second front in the war. Rather than fighting terrorists on our East Coast we are engaging and killing them in the deserts of that country.
If you believe this grade school playground argument, then by all means vote Republican.
It might be a little more difficult to convince the people of London, Madrid or Bali that fighting the war in Iraq was protecting them from terrorism, but hey, the terrorist haven’t blown up any building is my city this year (or ever for that matter), so by all means vote Republican.
Oh, and the fact that the war in Iraq is the number one recruiting tool used by the terrorists, and that the US presence in Iraq is bring new recruits to the terrorist cause faster than we are killing them, that is all irrelevant.
The fact that we are losing the war in Iraq and Republican leadership does not have a plan to win the war and does not want to make the sacrifices needed to win the war, that’s not important. I mean, god forbid we might have to increase taxes or reduce oil imports or something to actually win the war in Iraq. If it’s that hard to win, then who would want to win? It is much more important to keep losing the war in Iraq, so that there are more trained terrorists, so the Republicans can keep using this silly argument in 2008.
Definitely, vote Republican to increase the number of terrorists and keep losing the war in Iraq.
I voted a week ago, straight R, for the first time (I used to be a Democrat who voted like an Independent). For one thing, Texas is pretty much a one party state, and most of the people I voted for were incumbents or former officeholders who had performed well.
The main reason I want the Republicans to hang on to both houses is because the Democrats have busied themselves with finding new rights for terrorists, by opposing the MCA, the Patriot Act, and the NSA surveillance programs. I believe that surveillance and coercive interrogation programs are preventing attacks. Other reasons include gun rights, and my perception that the Democrat leadership has veered way to the left.
I don't expect to convince any of you Dems that I'm right. I'm just telling you why I, formerly a centrist Democrat, voted a straight party ticket for the first time, and voted R.
I'm voting straight GOP this year with one caveat and one exception.
The caveat: I'm going to hold my nose while voting for the gun-grabbing mountebank Mike DeWine, because Sherrod Brown is at least as bad as DeWine on gunowner rights, and arguably worse on the kind of judges (originalist) I'd like to see confirmed to the federal bench (though DeWine, as a member of the Gang of 14, is no prize either).
Let Mr. DeWine look to his career in the next primary, however, if I am still in Ohio then.
The exception: I'm voting Marc Dann (D) for attorney general of Ohio over the Republican incumbent, Betty Montgomery. Dann is better on gunowner rights than Montgomery.
Nothing here about the record multi-TRILLION dollar debt
Which when compared to the size of the economy is actually right in line with historical averages. Not that I'm a big fan of the historical average and don't think it shouldn't be a lot smaller, but it's not the risk of impending Doom that you make it out to be.
torture barking dogs, panties as hats, sleep deprivation, and loud Brittany Spears music are not torture.
Well, maybe Brittany's music.
The military has actually done a pretty decent (if not perfect) job of finding and prosecuting those individuals who violate policy on handling detainees.
massive expansion of government,
I'll more than stipulate to this one. I just don't see Democrats taking the opposite issue on this. The difference between the parties here is just on what the money gets spent on. And frankly if the money is going to be spent anyway, I'd rather it go to the military than the single mom with 6 kids and one on the way. She wasn't raped 7 times, learn your damned lesson already.
the many republicans involved in scandals As stated, scandals are just as prevalent on both sides of the fence.
"Heckuva job Brownie" I'm still not convinced he wasn't scapegoated since the president has no authority to fire a mayor and/or governor and someone's head had to roll.
Border (in)security Like it's been so much better in the past? Bush hasn't done near enough for my tastes, but given my expectation that he'd do absolutely nothing, what we did get was better than a sharp stick in the eye.
This is one of those things Dean was talking about earlier. Those people that thought Bush was a conservative were really hacked off at not getting a wall and deportations. They viewed it as betrayal of conservative values. Those of us that thought Bush was a liberal on this particular issue were happy that we got something out of him at all.
Well, said BK! I no longer vote straight ticket on anything and I am much more likely to write in a candidate I DO like rather than hold my nose and chose the best of two evils on the ballot. My write-in candidate(s) may only get one (my) vote, but I know I am voting my conscience - and I *voted*!
Voting a party ticket is what you do if you want to have an effective voice in government. If you vote for two Senators, one democrat and one republican, you are effectively canceling your own vote out.
The most effective way to get your own personal political goals met is to fully support the party that comes closest to agreeing with you.
That's just the way it is. That's why the parties exist. That's why the parties have nationwide reach and party members reward loyalty.
For those of you who want to vote "the candidate, not the party" that's fine with me, your votes will either fall into one party or the other anyway, or else you'll just cancel most of your own voice out. Either way is fine with me.
Sean, if I vote for a Republican senator and a Democrat representative because I like their political stance (for instance they are both moderates) and they both get elected, I will actually feel that my political voice IS being heard because both with be more likely to at least try to work together in some bi-partisan fashion rather than blindly follow the partisan party line.
Sean Golden: I don't have the option to vote for two Senators at the same time. :) I do have the option of voting for half a dozen different executive offices, none of which interact with each other much, and one legislator each in entirely different legislative bodies.
How does voting for a Republican for Governor, a Democrat for Senator, and a Libertarian for Treasurer mean that I am cancelling my own vote out? They're completely different jobs with different qualifications, and the people doing each job don't interfere with the people doing other jobs.
You are welcome to your opinions. And you are free to vote on them. The reality, which you don't appear to like, is that if your votes, over time average out to 50/50 Democrat/Republican, then you are cancelling your own vote out on any issue that is not a slam dunk with both parties voting for it anyway.
Parties exist to promote platforms. Platforms exist to effect political change.
That's reality. That's politics.
Vote how you want. The world reacts to political realities, not pleasant political delusions.
One mitigating factor that I'll grant Robert is that you could argue that State vs. National politics is separable. I could argue the point, but there is enough difference that I don't feel compelled to press it too hard.
But Governor and State Senator and Representative also effectively cancel each other out in many ways, not the least of which is the potential for veto power, just as the President and Congress can reach impasses at the national level.
Kevin, ESCR and ASCR are complimentary, not competititve, and GW's veto was a political sop to ignorant foo' like u.
like the existing lines (which are useless BTW) the decision was already made for the 400,000 snowflake embryos. no one's adopting them.
'Zactly like Tony Blair and foxhunting. And like Blair, he's lost power for political pandering.
although the horrific debacle in Iraq is more reason to get the cluelesss out of power.
Scolding Maliki to "stand up" and demanding a timeline is breathtakingly idiotic.
the other way GW will pay is when someone near and dear to him develops Alzheimers. i will savor every drop of his suffering like fine wine.
No one has outlawed embryonic stem cell research. Only the *Federal funding* of that research has been curtailed. I won't go into the reasons because you already know them. We will have to agree to disagree on that one. But I will point out that you and your friends are free to give as much of your own money to the researchers of your choice.
However, saying of an Alzheimer's patient - OR THEIR LOVED ONES - that you will "savor every drop of his suffering like fine wine" - well, that's just gross and the main reason I shy away from voting for the "compassionate" assholes on your side.
yerr not listening.
GW said he allows ESCR on the 11 [useless] pre-existing lines because "the decision had already been made".
the decision has also been made for the 400,000 snowflake embryos.
no one is adopting them.
ergo, GW was hypocritically vote whoring with the veto.
QED
I need to stop my knee-jerk reaction to your vile and bilious nature. On rare occasions you actually formulate a coherent thought, even when I have to crawl through the slime to find it.
I think that you are being unkind to Bush by calling him a "vote whore" I think he was trying to make a very difficult decision that balanced two polarized extremes. I think Bush truly is committed to a 'pro-life' philosophy and so finds it very difficult to venture onto the slippery slope of exploiting living human cells for any purpose. On the other hand, he truly wants to see some advances made in these horrible situations. I personally think that in this particular case GW made one of the most difficult calls of his life and did his level best to balance his own beliefs against the goals of medicine and science, and came down on what he felt was a defensible compromise that he could, just barely, live with.
But all of that entire analysis is predicated on the assumption that GW Bush is a decent human being with a functioning heart and brain that are sometimes at odds with each other.
I know that there are many who refuse to accept that sort of description of GW Bush. I am not one of them.
Sean: I find myself in the situation that I tend to agree with the Democrats on social and environmental issues and with the Republicans on economic issues.
So I'll vote for Republicans who buck their party line on social and environmental issues, and vote for Democrats otherwise, unless the Democrat is a corrupt scumbag whom I would rather not see in office (when I usually vote third party).
And every time a critical vote comes up on a major bit of legislation that has polarized the parties, your vote is in danger of being canceled out. Every time the leadership of the legislative bodies comes into play, your vote is in danger of being canceled out. Every time a platform is being defined and strategy to advance that platform is laid out, your vote is in danger of being canceled out. And what I've seen historically is that there are really three kinds of issues up for vote in our major legislative bodies:
1. The no-brainers that will pass because both parties support them.
2. The non-partisan votes that pass of fail because they really don't mean that much in the big picture (build a bridge in Missouri? Sure, both Missouri Dems and Repubs will vote for it).
3. The critical key platform-defining votes that make or break political platforms, such as abortion, SCOTUS justice confirmations, tax policy etc.
It has been my personal experience that 1 needs no real thought because they're going to pass or fail regardless, 2 is rarely anything that affects me personally, and 3 is about 90% of the reason I vote in the first place.
And 3 is all about who controls the agenda, who owns the committees who can pull a majority vote together by appealing to party loyalty, etc. In other words, in the long run option 3 is what politics is all about. And that's all about party and platform.
But as I've said, I'm fine with you canceling your votes out. It's no skin off my nose. It just makes my influence more powerful. So keep it up. More power to you. You GO Guy!
How is my vote in danger of being cancelled out? If I vote for democratic legislators and a republican treasurer, what effect does that have?
ISTM that in that case I get legislation passed by Democrats and enforced by Republicans --- and since I trust fiscal conservatives to spend money wisely more than Democrats, but I trust Democratic priorities more than Republican priorities, that's a good situation.
Similarly, if I vote for Democratic legislators and a Republican Insurance Commissioner, there is no cancellation there, either.
The two places you might have a point are these:
(a) if I vote for a Democratic legislator and a Republican legislator.
(b) if I vote for a Democratic legislator and a Republican governor.
In the case of (b), *which is what I intend to do this election*, if things go correctly, I get:
(a) a legislature which will pass bills that I want passed (expanding gay rights, for example, or designating more wilderness areas) and bills that I don't want passed (increasing the income tax).
(b) a governor who will sign the bills I want passed (expanding gay rights and designating more wilderness areas) and veto the bills that I don't want passed.
This is true *because I am selective* about the Republicans I vote for. The Democratic legislature won't pass the Republican-supported bills I loathe, and the Republican governor won't sign the Democrat-supported bills I loathe. It's win-win.
It's murkier if I vote for a Democratic legislator and a Republican legislator. But even there, the Republican legislators i've voted for (Tom Campbell, for example, or Bruce McPherson) have supported liberal social and environmental policies while opposing liberal fiscal policies; thus, by voting for them, I get *exactly what I want*. :)
I think Bush truly is committed to a 'pro-life' philosophy and so finds it very difficult to venture onto the slippery slope of exploiting living human cells for any purpose.
i call bullshit.
Bush justifies the approved use of the 11 existing ESC lines because "the decision had already been made". but that use involves exploiting living human cells, doesn't it sean? =)
the only veto in the bush pres is to stop useage of any of the 400,000 excess fertility treatment embryos. well, the decision has already been made for those embryos too,
no one wants to adopt them.
so, hypocrite.
i think GW and tony blair are both decent human beings not above doing a little vote whoring.
with Blair it was foxhunting. he stabbed a loyal constituency in the back to placate the PETA townies. but that didn't save blair from the tar-baby of Iraq.
and pandering to the twodigit RTL won't save Bush either.
Go ahead and build a mountain of rationalization to explain your behavior. It doesn't change the basic political reality, which is that party politics is the only politics. I'm not saying I'm in favor of that, or that I like it, only that I recognize it and vote according to how reality actually works, not how I want it to work.
Sean: you're welcome to believe that all politics is party politics. I live in a state where that isn't so, and where there are many offices which people vote are asked to vote on which don't conflict with other offices.
Voting for a Republican Controller doesn't cancel out voting for a Democrat Secretary of State, any more than building a bridge in one place cancels out building a tunnel somewhere else. The jobs don't interact at all.
I will concede that there are some political positions that are so remote or so inconsequential in the bigger picture that some such votes can be split without concern.
But that's not what we have been talking about and I think you know that. I've been talking about races that matter. Dogcatcher isn't one of them. But statewide races for state legislsture, Governor and all national races are races that matter.
I'll give you dogcatcher or a local sheriff, but that's about as far as I'll go. A Democrat Secretary of State is usually a career politician who is going to rise up the ladder. So voting for one is voting on a rung on the ladder.
You can keep arguing this all you like. It is, as I said, your choice. I will say the effect is cumulative, the more important the position, the more critical it is to vote for party, not person.
Where the line should be drawn before you apply that rule is, like all lines, debatable. But it is definitely much lower than the US Legislature and, IMHO the State Legislatures. You can draw it where you like, as I said, your canceling of your impact on politics is not my problem.
Cue John Conley: "These Rose Colored Glasses..."
Oh well.
I'm currently planning on voting for Schwarzenegger (R) for governor, Garamendi (D) for Lt. Governor, Bowen (D) for Secretary of State, Chiang (D) for Controller, Smithson (L) for Treasurer, Poochigian (R) for Attorney General, Poizner (R) for Insurance Commissioner, Feinstein (D) for Senate, Eshoo (D) for the House, and Ruskin (D) for the Assembly.
I don't think I've ever voted a straight party ticket, and I'm unconvinced by either of your rationales that I should start.
The U.S. nearly went bankrupt during World War 2. Guess we shouldn't have fought that one either, huh?
Proof?
That can be argued either way.
Who was the last President to be impeached? Oh, wait, that scandal was a waste of American taxpayer money and government time, huh?
We're getting a 700 mile fence on the worst holes in the border. More Border Patrol agents. Increased employer scrutiny.
Anything else?
If you believe this grade school playground argument, then by all means vote Republican.
It might be a little more difficult to convince the people of London, Madrid or Bali that fighting the war in Iraq was protecting them from terrorism, but hey, the terrorist haven’t blown up any building is my city this year (or ever for that matter), so by all means vote Republican.
Oh, and the fact that the war in Iraq is the number one recruiting tool used by the terrorists, and that the US presence in Iraq is bring new recruits to the terrorist cause faster than we are killing them, that is all irrelevant.
The fact that we are losing the war in Iraq and Republican leadership does not have a plan to win the war and does not want to make the sacrifices needed to win the war, that’s not important. I mean, god forbid we might have to increase taxes or reduce oil imports or something to actually win the war in Iraq. If it’s that hard to win, then who would want to win? It is much more important to keep losing the war in Iraq, so that there are more trained terrorists, so the Republicans can keep using this silly argument in 2008.
Definitely, vote Republican to increase the number of terrorists and keep losing the war in Iraq.
The main reason I want the Republicans to hang on to both houses is because the Democrats have busied themselves with finding new rights for terrorists, by opposing the MCA, the Patriot Act, and the NSA surveillance programs. I believe that surveillance and coercive interrogation programs are preventing attacks. Other reasons include gun rights, and my perception that the Democrat leadership has veered way to the left.
I don't expect to convince any of you Dems that I'm right. I'm just telling you why I, formerly a centrist Democrat, voted a straight party ticket for the first time, and voted R.
One of my reasons for voting for Arnold is that I hope he'll help reduce the one-party-ness of California. One-party states are a bad thing.
The caveat: I'm going to hold my nose while voting for the gun-grabbing mountebank Mike DeWine, because Sherrod Brown is at least as bad as DeWine on gunowner rights, and arguably worse on the kind of judges (originalist) I'd like to see confirmed to the federal bench (though DeWine, as a member of the Gang of 14, is no prize either).
Let Mr. DeWine look to his career in the next primary, however, if I am still in Ohio then.
The exception: I'm voting Marc Dann (D) for attorney general of Ohio over the Republican incumbent, Betty Montgomery. Dann is better on gunowner rights than Montgomery.
Alex P. Keaton himself is a Republican. Always has been. I doubt the party wants to kill him. Especially a Reagan Republican!
Which when compared to the size of the economy is actually right in line with historical averages. Not that I'm a big fan of the historical average and don't think it shouldn't be a lot smaller, but it's not the risk of impending Doom that you make it out to be.
torture
barking dogs, panties as hats, sleep deprivation, and loud Brittany Spears music are not torture.
Well, maybe Brittany's music.
The military has actually done a pretty decent (if not perfect) job of finding and prosecuting those individuals who violate policy on handling detainees.
massive expansion of government,
I'll more than stipulate to this one. I just don't see Democrats taking the opposite issue on this. The difference between the parties here is just on what the money gets spent on. And frankly if the money is going to be spent anyway, I'd rather it go to the military than the single mom with 6 kids and one on the way. She wasn't raped 7 times, learn your damned lesson already.
the many republicans involved in scandals
As stated, scandals are just as prevalent on both sides of the fence.
"Heckuva job Brownie"
I'm still not convinced he wasn't scapegoated since the president has no authority to fire a mayor and/or governor and someone's head had to roll.
Border (in)security
Like it's been so much better in the past? Bush hasn't done near enough for my tastes, but given my expectation that he'd do absolutely nothing, what we did get was better than a sharp stick in the eye.
This is one of those things Dean was talking about earlier. Those people that thought Bush was a conservative were really hacked off at not getting a wall and deportations. They viewed it as betrayal of conservative values. Those of us that thought Bush was a liberal on this particular issue were happy that we got something out of him at all.
The most effective way to get your own personal political goals met is to fully support the party that comes closest to agreeing with you.
That's just the way it is. That's why the parties exist. That's why the parties have nationwide reach and party members reward loyalty.
For those of you who want to vote "the candidate, not the party" that's fine with me, your votes will either fall into one party or the other anyway, or else you'll just cancel most of your own voice out. Either way is fine with me.
How does voting for a Republican for Governor, a Democrat for Senator, and a Libertarian for Treasurer mean that I am cancelling my own vote out? They're completely different jobs with different qualifications, and the people doing each job don't interfere with the people doing other jobs.
it's like i said, there must be something wrong with your head ;p.
You are welcome to your opinions. And you are free to vote on them. The reality, which you don't appear to like, is that if your votes, over time average out to 50/50 Democrat/Republican, then you are cancelling your own vote out on any issue that is not a slam dunk with both parties voting for it anyway.
Parties exist to promote platforms. Platforms exist to effect political change.
That's reality. That's politics.
Vote how you want. The world reacts to political realities, not pleasant political delusions.
But Governor and State Senator and Representative also effectively cancel each other out in many ways, not the least of which is the potential for veto power, just as the President and Congress can reach impasses at the national level.
like the existing lines (which are useless BTW) the decision was already made for the 400,000 snowflake embryos. no one's adopting them.
'Zactly like Tony Blair and foxhunting. And like Blair, he's lost power for political pandering.
although the horrific debacle in Iraq is more reason to get the cluelesss out of power.
Scolding Maliki to "stand up" and demanding a timeline is breathtakingly idiotic.
the other way GW will pay is when someone near and dear to him develops Alzheimers. i will savor every drop of his suffering like fine wine.
However, saying of an Alzheimer's patient - OR THEIR LOVED ONES - that you will "savor every drop of his suffering like fine wine" - well, that's just gross and the main reason I shy away from voting for the "compassionate" assholes on your side.
Ah yes, the tolerant, sensitive, nuanced Left speaks.
im a registered republican.
yerr not listening.
GW said he allows ESCR on the 11 [useless] pre-existing lines because "the decision had already been made".
the decision has also been made for the 400,000 snowflake embryos.
no one is adopting them.
ergo, GW was hypocritically vote whoring with the veto.
QED
I need to stop my knee-jerk reaction to your vile and bilious nature. On rare occasions you actually formulate a coherent thought, even when I have to crawl through the slime to find it.
I think that you are being unkind to Bush by calling him a "vote whore" I think he was trying to make a very difficult decision that balanced two polarized extremes. I think Bush truly is committed to a 'pro-life' philosophy and so finds it very difficult to venture onto the slippery slope of exploiting living human cells for any purpose. On the other hand, he truly wants to see some advances made in these horrible situations. I personally think that in this particular case GW made one of the most difficult calls of his life and did his level best to balance his own beliefs against the goals of medicine and science, and came down on what he felt was a defensible compromise that he could, just barely, live with.
But all of that entire analysis is predicated on the assumption that GW Bush is a decent human being with a functioning heart and brain that are sometimes at odds with each other.
I know that there are many who refuse to accept that sort of description of GW Bush. I am not one of them.
So I'll vote for Republicans who buck their party line on social and environmental issues, and vote for Democrats otherwise, unless the Democrat is a corrupt scumbag whom I would rather not see in office (when I usually vote third party).
And every time a critical vote comes up on a major bit of legislation that has polarized the parties, your vote is in danger of being canceled out. Every time the leadership of the legislative bodies comes into play, your vote is in danger of being canceled out. Every time a platform is being defined and strategy to advance that platform is laid out, your vote is in danger of being canceled out. And what I've seen historically is that there are really three kinds of issues up for vote in our major legislative bodies:
1. The no-brainers that will pass because both parties support them.
2. The non-partisan votes that pass of fail because they really don't mean that much in the big picture (build a bridge in Missouri? Sure, both Missouri Dems and Repubs will vote for it).
3. The critical key platform-defining votes that make or break political platforms, such as abortion, SCOTUS justice confirmations, tax policy etc.
It has been my personal experience that 1 needs no real thought because they're going to pass or fail regardless, 2 is rarely anything that affects me personally, and 3 is about 90% of the reason I vote in the first place.
And 3 is all about who controls the agenda, who owns the committees who can pull a majority vote together by appealing to party loyalty, etc. In other words, in the long run option 3 is what politics is all about. And that's all about party and platform.
But as I've said, I'm fine with you canceling your votes out. It's no skin off my nose. It just makes my influence more powerful. So keep it up. More power to you. You GO Guy!
ISTM that in that case I get legislation passed by Democrats and enforced by Republicans --- and since I trust fiscal conservatives to spend money wisely more than Democrats, but I trust Democratic priorities more than Republican priorities, that's a good situation.
Similarly, if I vote for Democratic legislators and a Republican Insurance Commissioner, there is no cancellation there, either.
The two places you might have a point are these:
(a) if I vote for a Democratic legislator and a Republican legislator.
(b) if I vote for a Democratic legislator and a Republican governor.
In the case of (b), *which is what I intend to do this election*, if things go correctly, I get:
(a) a legislature which will pass bills that I want passed (expanding gay rights, for example, or designating more wilderness areas) and bills that I don't want passed (increasing the income tax).
(b) a governor who will sign the bills I want passed (expanding gay rights and designating more wilderness areas) and veto the bills that I don't want passed.
This is true *because I am selective* about the Republicans I vote for. The Democratic legislature won't pass the Republican-supported bills I loathe, and the Republican governor won't sign the Democrat-supported bills I loathe. It's win-win.
It's murkier if I vote for a Democratic legislator and a Republican legislator. But even there, the Republican legislators i've voted for (Tom Campbell, for example, or Bruce McPherson) have supported liberal social and environmental policies while opposing liberal fiscal policies; thus, by voting for them, I get *exactly what I want*. :)
i call bullshit.
Bush justifies the approved use of the 11 existing ESC lines because "the decision had already been made". but that use involves exploiting living human cells, doesn't it sean? =)
the only veto in the bush pres is to stop useage of any of the 400,000 excess fertility treatment embryos. well, the decision has already been made for those embryos too,
no one wants to adopt them.
so, hypocrite.
i think GW and tony blair are both decent human beings not above doing a little vote whoring.
with Blair it was foxhunting. he stabbed a loyal constituency in the back to placate the PETA townies. but that didn't save blair from the tar-baby of Iraq.
and pandering to the twodigit RTL won't save Bush either.
Go ahead and build a mountain of rationalization to explain your behavior. It doesn't change the basic political reality, which is that party politics is the only politics. I'm not saying I'm in favor of that, or that I like it, only that I recognize it and vote according to how reality actually works, not how I want it to work.
That's why it was such a difficult decision for Bush. And he said he would only do it that once, and he's stuck to it.
Would you have preferred that he veto the first measure?
another whited sepuchre.
?
Enough on this, debating with you is the intellectual equivalent of playing whack-a-mole.
Voting for a Republican Controller doesn't cancel out voting for a Democrat Secretary of State, any more than building a bridge in one place cancels out building a tunnel somewhere else. The jobs don't interact at all.
I will concede that there are some political positions that are so remote or so inconsequential in the bigger picture that some such votes can be split without concern.
But that's not what we have been talking about and I think you know that. I've been talking about races that matter. Dogcatcher isn't one of them. But statewide races for state legislsture, Governor and all national races are races that matter.
I'll give you dogcatcher or a local sheriff, but that's about as far as I'll go. A Democrat Secretary of State is usually a career politician who is going to rise up the ladder. So voting for one is voting on a rung on the ladder.
You can keep arguing this all you like. It is, as I said, your choice. I will say the effect is cumulative, the more important the position, the more critical it is to vote for party, not person.
Where the line should be drawn before you apply that rule is, like all lines, debatable. But it is definitely much lower than the US Legislature and, IMHO the State Legislatures. You can draw it where you like, as I said, your canceling of your impact on politics is not my problem.