![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Arianna Huffington: Will the Dems Ever Learn? "It's The National Security, Stupid"
When will they finally understand that they will not be a majority party again until they clearly define for the country where they stand on national security -- and why their way will keep us safer than what the other guys are doing?
You don't rise from the political ashes by standing around hoping the other guy blows it.
Like I said. Not that I think that the Democrats becoming a majority party is the best of all possible worlds--but the point noted above doesn't have to apply only to them.
When will they finally understand that they will not be a majority party again until they clearly define for the country where they stand on national security -- and why their way will keep us safer than what the other guys are doing?
You don't rise from the political ashes by standing around hoping the other guy blows it.
Like I said. Not that I think that the Democrats becoming a majority party is the best of all possible worlds--but the point noted above doesn't have to apply only to them.
Good governance, not continuity of power
Date: 8 September 2005 15:29 (UTC)Re: Good governance, not continuity of power
Date: 8 September 2005 15:34 (UTC)Not living in a parliamentary democracy, I assume that you haven't actually been voting for a party up to this point. Are you saying that you will never again vote for a candidate who is a party member? Or just candidates of the (current) two major parties? If the only candidates are those affiliated with the two major parties, will you refuse to vote for any of them?
Re: Good governance, not continuity of power
Date: 8 September 2005 15:44 (UTC)What I meant was: I will never again base my vote for a particular candidate solely on the party with which they happen to be affiliated.
Of course I'll vote for a major party candidate, if I happen to believe that that white man from the ivy league is the best white man from the ivy league for the job. In this coming election, I'll almost certainly vote for the most viable non-Republican candidate. That will almost certainly be a Democrat, and he will lose, just like last time.
Not living in a parliamentary democracy, I find it odd that many states require a party affiliation to get on the ballot, and that every single voting booth I've ever entered has a bubble to vote "party line" at the top of the first page.
Re: Good governance, not continuity of power
Date: 8 September 2005 15:59 (UTC)You might also want to consider these two statements in combination:
a. I will never again base my vote for a particular candidate solely on the party with which they happen to be affiliated.
b. I'll almost certainly vote for the most viable non-Republican candidate.
I note the use of the qualifier "almost certainly". And I'll grant you that many of the Republican candidates in the US are Giant Steaming Piles (I live in Christopher Cox's district, and have been mightily conflicted over his appointment as head of the SEC--on the one hand, he won't be my rep any more, on the other hand, appointing him to head the SEC is sort of like appointing Bolton to the UN). And I even believe that you intend to do your best to not do (a). But (b) sounds an awful lot like, well, basing your vote on party affiliation. I'm just sayin'. :)
every single voting booth I've ever entered has a bubble to vote "party line" at the top of the first page
Interesting. I don't believe I've ever seen one of those. Then again, I've only ever been registered to vote in Oregon and California, and it strikes me as probable that someone in each of those states would have made a point of removing that from statewide ballots (if it was ever there).