Holy Crap
Frank Cagle, a small government libertarian Republican sort, has endorsed Harold Ford, Jr:
I intend to vote for him in November and urge you to do the same. Do it to save conservatism in America. If you can’t vote for him, abstain. That works as well. Are you worried about not showing party loyalty if you don’t vote for Corker? Don’t. There is no doubt in anyone’s mind Corker’s campaign manager, Tom Ingram, will be voting for Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen in the same election. If it doesn’t bother Corker, it shouldn’t bother you.
October 12th, 2006 at 9:15 am
I’m not going to vote for Corker or Ford. I will vote for independent “Bo” Heyward who agrees with my Constitutional libertarian views AND he answers my e-mailings re: the issues UNLIKE the Corker and Ford web-site “contact us” links. IF they aren’t responsive now, I must assume they will be unresponsive when electd and thus UNFIT for office.
October 12th, 2006 at 9:56 am
I share Frank Cagle’s frustration and contempt for the tactics and practices of the Republican Party. But I disagree about voting for Harold Ford as an effective way to change those tactics and practices.
A vote for Harold Ford is a vote for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and that is too much to ask. I will vote for Bob Corker.
You have to pick and choose your battles.
There is a better way to express your concern about the management of the Republican Party. Contact Steve Buttry or Karen Brown. They are the local party representatives. More contact information is here.
I agree we need to replace leadership positions in the Republican Party. A good place to start is with Brian Hornback in Knox County. This doofus has a laptop computer mounted on his dashboard and types on the computer while driving. I am not joking.
Voting for Ford to teach the Republican Party a lesson is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
October 12th, 2006 at 10:17 am
How about voting for Ford because Corker’s entire campaign has centered mainly on attack ads and haven’t addressed the issues?
I want to hear where he stands , not how Ford parties like a rock star. Hell, if I were young, single and well-to-do, I’d party like a rock star too. And go to church on Sunday, to boot.
I moved to W TN in 1969, I know full well how the Ford family operates, and I have to say, Junior’s not cut from the same cloth.
My only hesitation on voting for Ford, to paraphrase #9: A vote for Ford is a vote for Schumer, Boxer and Reid. Pelosi’s in the House, to pick a nit there.
I hope Corker gets his message out soon, because a lot of folks are thinking like me, and most don’t really follow the issues closely.
October 12th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
It’s incredible to me that the DNC runs ads for Ford re: stopping illegal immigration and being opposed to amnesty when most Democrats in Congress are on the opposite side. Bush and most Congressional Democrats are actually allies for open borders and amnesty for illegals.
Also Ford has a poor voting record on that issue–about like that of Frist and Alexander if you check web-sites like http://www.numbersusa.com
October 12th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
#9:
A vote for Harold Ford is a vote for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi
I disagree with this. That’s only true if you think the Democrats have a reasonable chance of taking over the Senate majority in 2006. I think that is exceedingly unlikely. Given that fact, this year would be the perfect year in which to vote for a Democrat to send a message to the GOP. If you cost them seats without costing them overall control, that could be enough of a slap in the face to wake them up without ceding control to the other party.
It’s all well and good to think that you can have an impact by contacting the local party, but the bottom line in politics is that winning and losing is all that matters. As long as the GOP keeps winning, they’ll keep doing what they’re doing. The only way you’ll get them to change is if you make them pay politically, which means them losing.
October 12th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
tgirsch writes:
I disagree with this. That’s only true if you think the Democrats have a reasonable chance of taking over the Senate majority in 2006. I think that is exceedingly unlikely. Given that fact, this year would be the perfect year in which to vote for a Democrat to send a message to the GOP. If you cost them seats without costing them overall control, that could be enough of a slap in the face to wake them up without ceding control to the other party. As long as the GOP keeps winning, they’ll keep doing what they’re doing. The only way you’ll get them to change is if you make them pay politically, which means them losing.
Quite the chess player aren’t you? Good effort.
What makes you think anyone would be willing to take the risk? If you want to play this game I would recommend you change the leadership of your party. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are a disgrace. Not just to the Democrat Party but to the entire Nation. If you had reasonable leadership your idea would have some merit. The risk is too great.
I will take a small plastic bag and some Kleenex with me on election day. If I throw up a little when I vote for Corker I will be prepared.
The Republican Party needs a housecleaning. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It can be done internally.
October 12th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
I will send the Republicans and Democrats in the Senate race a message by casting a principled vote for independent candidate, “Bo” Heyward. His philosophy agrees with mine AND, he answers issues questions when I contact his web-site–UNLIKE Corker and Ford who are either unable or unwilling which makes them UNFIT!! If people would stop bouncing back and forth between the two establishment parties, we could get some results.
October 12th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
#9:
What makes you think anyone would be willing to take the risk?
Because apart from dyed-in-the-wool party loyalists, people do it all the time. I was assuming you were something of an independent, because Uncle and his co-bloggers generally are. If you’re a partisan Republican through and through, the strategy probably doesn’t make much sense to you.
As for my party’s leadership, while I’d prefer someone other than Pelosi to lead the house, I don’t really have a problem with Reid in the Senate. I’m not sure what he’s done that makes him a “disgrace to the nation.” I’m not sure what Pelosi has done to rise to that level either. It’s not like either of them were sending provocative IMs to underage boys or anything, or even covering up for others who were… (Yeah, that’s a cheap shot, but when you’re throwing around terms like “disgrace,” it’s important to have some perspective.)
In any case, I stand by my position. The only thing that gets a party’s attention is losing. (Proof of concept: Do you really think the Democrats would have omitted gun control from their platform if they’d been winning for the past six years?) If the GOP keeps winning, the GOP will keep nominating candidates like Corker, safe in the knowledge that no matter what they do, you’re not going to vote for the Democrat, so it doesn’t really matter what you think.
For what it’s worth, although I do consider myself a moderate partisan Democrat, given a choice between a bad Democrat and a not-so-bad Republican, I’d vote the latter. In fact, I did exactly that in local elections here just a couple of months ago. At the national level, a fiscally responsible, pro-environment, pro-choice Republican could easily win my vote. Problem is, there doesn’t seem to be any such thing, that I can tell.
October 12th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
I’ll interject that Reid is solidly pro-gun.
October 12th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
Ron W:
Go ahead, throw away your vote. 😉
Seriously, though, until our political system is fundamentally reformed to make third parties viable, it’s political suicide to vote for a third party, except in two cases: the first case is one in which one candidate is clearly going to win, no matter what you do; the second case is one in which you truly have no preference at all between the two candidates, i.e. you view them to be equally good or, more likely, equally bad.
In the current race, I’ll vote for Ford for very much the same reason #9 is voting for Corker: not so much because I prefer him, but because the other choice is far worse. Although I suspect my distaste for Ford isn’t quite as strong as #9’s distaste for Corker.
Oh, and one addendum to my above comment to #9: There’s an inverse relationship between the amount of time and effort a candidate spends pandering to the religious right, and my likeliness to support him.
October 12th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
Other than the real Ross Perot debacle my favorite third party candidate parody was the Simpson episode “Treehouse of Horror VII”.
October 13th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
#9:
“Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos!”
Heh. That’s my favorite, too. I still have a .wav file on my machine from that episode:
Kodos-as-Dole: “Abortions for everyone!”
Crowd: BOOOOOOO!
Kodos/Dole: “Very well, abortions for no one!”
Crowd: BOOOOOOO!
Kodos/Dole: “Hmmm… Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!”
Crowd: HOORAY!
Has there ever been a better microcosm of political discourse in this country?
October 13th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
tgirsch,
It’s not “throwing away my vote” when I refuse to vote for candidates who can’t or won’t answer issue questions addressed to their web-sites where it says “contact us”. When I find a candidate who agrees with me and will answer me, then I would be “wasting my vote” if I give it to someone who will do neither.
A big part of the problem in government is an electorate who does what it is told by the political duopoly.
October 14th, 2006 at 9:22 am
Has there ever been a better microcosm of political discourse in this country?
The Simpsons and South Park are some of the best political satire available. This weeks South Park episode “Mystery of the Urinal Deuce” was wickedly funny. Cartman solves once and for all the truth behind 911. Sort of.
October 16th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Ron W:
I’m sympathetic to that way of thinking, I really am. But the problem is that the two viable choices aren’t usually between “bad” and “equally bad,” they’re between “bad” and “even worse.” And if, by casting a vote for a non-viable third-party, I cause “bad” to lose to “even worse,” that’s not a risk I’m willing to take. You may feel differently.
Now if I felt that the third party could become viable, or if third party votes weren’t simply ignored by the two parties in power, then I’d feel differently.
#9:
In case I didn’t mention it, my “Go ahead, throw away your vote” comment was directly inspired by that very Simpsons episode. 🙂