RE: The art of consensus-building
All three are conservative Republicans.
Well, to begin with, Linda has disqualified herself from serious consideration with this sentence. It indicates she is one of:
A. Lying.
B. Insane.
C. Uninformed.
D. A Democrat.
Of course, all four may be true.
I was in a discussion on another forum about this silly "effectiveness" argument. This is a liberal/socialist argument. Effectiveness, as defined by Linda and others like her, is measured by how many bills the legislator gets passed and how many times the legislator voted on the winning side. In the current climate of rampant socialism and creeping authoritarianism, we should be measuring effectiveness by how many times a legislator votes against bills and how few new laws he attempts to introduce. Effectiveness should also be measured by how often the legislator stands his ground on principle.
We are supposed to be electing people to represent our views to the government, not to compromise us down the river so they can bring home the pork. Under my definition of effectiveness, Brunstetter and Whisenhunt are completely disqualified on their records. The fact that Nathan Tabor has no record is meaningless or actually stands in his favor. The fact that he has signed a pledge not to raise taxes means he wants voters to believe he will stand on principle. Believing that is always a crap-shoot, but with Tabor, there is a chance that he will follow through. With the other two, you know from their past behaviors that the first thing they will do when they get to Raleigh is become part of the problem.
The argument that Forsyth voters need to replace Ham Horton in kind is ridiculous nonsense. No one older than the age of twelve actually believes that. It is just as inane as the argument that Bush needed to replace O'Conner in kind on the SCOTUS.
Americans need to wake up to the fact that they are putting a gun in these peoples' hands and giving them the power of coercion. Until they do, I expect elections will still be decided on silly, juvenile arguments like effectiveness and compromise.
posted by Anonymous | 8:07 AM
1 Comments:
At this point, my inclination is to cast a blank ballot for this office. W and B are clearly unacceptable. As you say, either will predictably go to Raleigh and immediately become "part of the problem". So far, T leaves me unimpressed.
Now, if we could find a Piedmont equivalent of Ron Paul (R-TX), my natural inertia might be sufficiently overcome to X his box. But given the available crop, "none of the above" will do. Too bad the vote tabulation system allows the counters to ignore voters who refuse to affirm the "least evil" of the offered choices. Maybe I will write in some name; they will ignore that too, but at least that makes it a bit more difficult than would a blank or other form-driven ambiguity that might get tweaked by the counters to register for their favorite office seeker (as frequently happened in the Florida 2000 election zoo).
Post a Comment
<< Home