Are Republicans/Conservatives Planning to Stay Home on Election Day? I Don't Think So!
What's up with all the news stories about how Republicans/Conservatives plan to stay home in November and not vote because they are disgusted with their own party, but do not want to vote for Democrats/Liberals? Are the Democrats hoping that by spreading these rumors, Republicans actually will stay home?
Hugh Hewitt has something to say about this in his article at Townhall.com. His piece is called "Now is Not the Time for Doom and Gloom." He asks:
So why are "conservatives" bad mouthing Republican prospects? Why not instead spend time and effort identifying those races which everyone agrees are close and in need of effort, attention and money?
He goes on to say:
Shock of shock, it is in the self-interest of some of the prophets to cast the alleged dire situation as the result of their not having been listened to, a very transparent ploy to position themselves and their agendas as the experts and the answers when the dust clears after the election.
He has an interesting piece--go read it and see what you think about it.
Labels: politics
posted by Mary @ 5:42 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
I have a problem with "protest votes". On a discussion forum I mentioned the following:
I always try to vote for someone rather than against someone else.
I vote for the candidate whose stated platform and past history most closely comes to what I want even if that candidate is not ideal. I try not to vote against a candidate merely as a protest against a party by voting for anyone but that candidate. The difference is, under the against scenario, one is not voting for the person that mostly closely matches what they want in a representative as a primary criteria (though it may be secondary).
We have a local talk radio host who claims to be independent (he leans left of center) who is promoting Texas "vote the rascals out". He would like to see all current incumbents voted out regardless of party and record. A surprising number have agreed with him. I consider that a vote against rather than for(again, in order of criteria). Doing what he suggests may vote out some competent and good representatives that even this talk show host would agree with on many issues, so voting against is his primary concern over voting for a candidate.
I think there is a limit to who we can vote for. Sometimes there is actually no viable choice that someone can be comfortable voting for.
You make a lot of sense, Titus. The whole point of voting is to get people INTO office who we think will do the best job, rather than shutting people OUT of office--or kicking them out.
Thanks for stopping by and leaving such a good comment!!
Post a Comment
<< Home