Friday, September 29th 2006
No, I’m not a Democrat.
A few weeks back, I posted about how a growing number of conservatives and libertarians are hoping to see Republicans lose control of Congress in the upcoming election. I count myself among the discontented.
So I probably shouldn’t have been so surprised to have found myself subscribed to the mailing list of the Campaign for a National Majority, the self-described “Future of the Democratic Party.” They asked me to publicize their endorsement of the Democrat candidate for State Controller of California. I even got a personalized followup email from them, nagging me about their endorsement.
I can see how they could have gotten confused about my intentions. “I want the Republicans to lose.” That supposedly translates to “I want the Democrats to win,” which couldn’t be further from the truth. In our de facto two-party system, one party losing means the other party wins. It’s crap, but it’s reality. I don’t want the Democrats to win, but that will be the side effect if my hope of Republicans losing comes true.
In a perfect world, we would be able to punish the Republicans without rewarding the Democrats. Both deserve to lose. As former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey put it in this footnote to his recent GOP bashing:
Perhaps the only thing more embarrassing than being a loyal Republican in this election season is being a loyal Democrat.
With so much discontent in the air, the two-party system is either a few election cycles away from death or stronger than ever. I hope for the former, but the latter makes more sense given the embrace of sadomasochistic politics (that is to say, partisanship for partisanship’s sake).
In conclusion, I will be voting against the Republicans nationally this November. I will be voting against the Democrats statewide. Both parties have abused the power they have in their respective jurisdictions, and only a fool would vote to grant them more.
How’s that for an endorsement?
Well, one of the (dis)advantages of living in a place like this is that you don’t really have a choice, and so you don’t have to make it. Your vote won’t matter. That’s why I usually focus on propositions and such.
Comment by Beetle — 9/29/2006 @ 6:41 pm
I agree with your strategy.
Comment by Yaman — 9/30/2006 @ 12:26 pm
I’m a Democrat and I voted against the recall in 2003 but I plan on voting for Arnold this time because Philly Boy is such a catastrophic weiner.
Comment by He Who Cannot Comment — 10/1/2006 @ 1:05 am
I was a Democrat but I can’t vote that way anymore, not as a gun-owner. I know my vote doesn’t really matter with the gerrymandered districts we have here.
Comment by DirtCrashr — 10/4/2006 @ 10:38 am
If you vote against the Republicans (for the Democrats) nationally, you are voting to impeach Bush, because that seems to be their only program. They don’t have a single decent idea or platform on anything. You’re voting for more liberals on the Supreme Court, which will affect your life for the next 30 years or so, much longer than Bush’s term. You’re voting for weaker national security and comfort for our enemies while we’re at war who are much more patient than the poorly focused Americans. You’re voting for a repeal of the tax cuts, and an end to a very successful economic recovery. You’re voting for even more holes in the border so unions can sign up more illegals and Mexico can continue its mass emigration. But you knew all that, didn’t you?
Comment by Norma — 10/15/2006 @ 5:21 pm
Norma, that may be one the most misguided posts I’ve read in sometime.
What major Dem today is saying this: “If you elect us, we’ll try and impeach Bush.” How would that make any sense? They KNOW they don’t have the votes to do it? They KNOW people would hate it. It’s just so illogical.
God hoping, we can get some Justices on the Supreme Court that remember the Constitution was meant to protect our rights. Liberal or conserative, we need a court that will provide a check against this president.
Weaker national security? Are you kidding? Study after study shows terrorism is up, all across the world since the Iraq war. And all that “comforting the enemy”/terrorist/traitor bullcrap is just silly. It make reasonable debate over reasonable alternatives all but impossible when one side, crazy Republicans, think that by calling Dems traitors, people will be scared enough to vote for them.
Very successful economy? Do you know that of the nation’s major economic movers and shakers, more of then WANT a Dem house? Why? Because the current Republicans have done a bang up job of spending like there’s no tomorrow while still pretending tax cuts saved the day. No evidence supports that proposition.
Moreover, how are you Repubs doing on illegal immigration? Great? yeh, I’m sure a wall will stop that problem. Of course.
You know, this post is the perfect example of the current GOP hail mary - pretend that if Dems win office, they’ll impeach Bush, give up the war on terror, nominate “crazy activist judges,” destroy the economy, and let a billion foreigners ruin our precious bodily fluids. People like you HOPE they can scare people into voting GOP - because really, what else can they run on?
Comment by Archangel — 10/16/2006 @ 1:18 am
“Study after study shows terrorism is up, all across the world since the Iraq war.” Archangel
Well, duh! Did you think they’d just lay down their arms when we pushed back after diddling with police action for decades? The Japanese and Germans did the same thing in the 40s–increased their attacks. It’s called war. And don’t cherry pick through the NIE. Also it is Muslims the terrorists are killing, so I’m not sure we’re even in that ballgame. We’re not in Bali or the Phillipines. But I’m sure they’re building their strength in Mexico so they can come across the Rio Grande on elephants (see YouTube). You’re right, Angel. Republicans have a miserable record on illegal immigration, surpassed only by the Democrats who want no borders at all. It certainly solves the “illegal” part, doesn’t it?
I was a Democrat longer than you’ve been alive. And they used to stand for something.
Comment by Norma — 10/16/2006 @ 5:42 am
Well now you’re really digging yourself in a strange hole - trying to compare the Iraq war and terrorism to WWII?
You really like your metaphors, eh? Cherry-picking? Ball game? Anywho, back to the “substance.”
One of Bush’s main arguments since 9/11, and especially since the Iraq war, is that his actions have made the world safer. GOP actions have made the world safer. But with North Korea building nukes, Iran still flaunting their nuclear development, Iraq and Afghanistan increasingly becoming huge messes, port security JUST NOW trying to be fixed, and with so many of the 9/11 Committee’s recommendations still left undone, I think it’s humorous that you think the GOP can do better than Dems. It’s like you saying, “Sure the GOP created this crap storm - so they deserve a chance to fix it. I mean, Dems would literally give up the keys to the Capitol if they could.”
I have no need to cherry pick from the NIE - from what has been made available, it’s clear how successful the GOP and Bush have been.
Not in the ball game, eh? Tell that to the thousands of soldiers killed, the many more wounded, and the American tourists hurt or killed in worldwide terrorist activities.
Ok, so you think we aren’t in “the ball game” (whatever BG that might be), but you are pretty sure we’ll be attacked by terrorists Civ II style any moment?
From what I’ve seen, Dems have a much more realistic solution for solving whatever immigration problems we may be having - a REAL guest worker program coupled with a real program to help Mexico get on its economic feet. That’s the only way things are going to improve.
Your historic track record as a once-Dem means so very little to me, I can’t possibly express it in words. I find it ironic then that you’ve flown to the GOP camp - you think THEY still stand for anything besides winning at all costs? What principles do they hold on to?
Comment by Archangel — 10/16/2006 @ 10:38 am