Heretic-The conservative case for
voting "democrat".
In August of this year, the MSM
reported the death of longtime democrat Senator Jim Jeffords.
Coincidentally, his death was one
week before the Florida primary election which elected Charlie Crist as the
democrat nominee for governor.
It occurred to me that, not long ago,
both men were respected republicans.
A review of their political
activities shows they were not just turncoats.
They were hardly even moderates.
They were liberals hiding under the
cloak of the republican party.
And it worked...for them.
How'd that work out for us
republicans?
Today, we face a decision on whether
to support the republican nominee for governor, Rick Snyder, and other faux
republicans in Michigan.
I can't list all the policies that led
me to ask this question, but I'd like to open a discussion about how we
conservatives (especially here in Michigan) should respond to the hijacking of
our party.
The advice we hear from the media
and the establishment party is to "come together" and, if necessary, support
the "best of the worst".
Most would agree the Rick Snyder is less
liberal than Mark Schauer.
But Gov. Snyder (and other
republicans) has enacted some very liberal programs, including the tax
increases, expansions of state government and the expansion of (totally
unfunded) Medicaid here in Michigan.
All solid liberal democrat concepts.
All solidly pushed through by our
republican governor and republican house and senate.
When we fiscal conservatives express
dissatisfaction, we are cautioned that if Snyder is replaced by a democrat,
terrible things will befall Michigan.
Like more tax increases?
Like more expansion of state government?
Like more union pension bailouts that
retain the economically suicidal defined benefit plans?
Like more unfunded expansions of
healthcare programs?
Like more, expanded attacks on
conservatives within our republican state party?
An argument might be made that if we
are getting democrat policies, maybe it would be better if democrats voted for
and enacted those policies.
An argument might be made that
continuing to support those politicians who have consistently stabbed us in the
back is a recipe for more stab wounds.
Here's my topic for discussion:
If we can't support some republicans
for elective office, what should we do?
Our choices seem simple:
1. Hold your nose and vote GOP.
2. Vote for a third party.
3. Don't vote for anyone in a
particular election.
All the above are simply wasting out vote.
Or this....
All the above are simply wasting out vote.
Or this....
4. Vote for the democrat-Actually voting to elect a democrat.
What might the benefits be in actually supporting
or electing certain democrats?
1. We would be sending a clear
message that we've had enough.
No more naive Charlie Brown hoping
(against all evidence) that Lucy will let us kick the football.
In the past we republicans have
quietly assured our leaders that how they vote does not matter.
We can be counted on supporting
anyone.
Even those who consistently betray
our values.
Those days are gone.
Listen and deliver on your promises
or you're gone too.
2. We'd get better governance. (at least in Michigan)
Republicans are more effective as a
minority.
Republicans have been best at
stopping democrat overreach when in the minority.
When in control, they seem to morph
into big government, big spending democrats.
Seven republican senators joined
every democrat to pass the Medicaid expansion.
Would they have done so if a
democrat was governor?
3. Democrats would get FULL credit
for enacting their liberal ideas.
When republicans support and vote
for liberal policies it gives the democrats cover.
Let democrats take credit for their
votes. (See above 7 republicans)
4. We will stop enabling republicans
to betray their convictions and their constituents.
If we continue to vote for those who
have betrayed us, it will reinforce their belief that they are bullet-proof.
No need to listen to
conservatives.
Only moderates.
And even liberals.
Why should we continue to support
those who betray us?
5. Liberals will no longer run as
republicans.
They will see they can't get elected
and move to the party that suits them best.
The chances of electing a Jeffords,
Crist (or a Snyder?) will be less likely.
Maybe it was worth surviving the
Carter presidency in order to get the Ronald Reagan Presidency.
What about the downside?
1. We could end up like California
or Illinois.
But is becoming a "disaster state" because of republican led baby-steps any better than getting there in big leaps by democrats?
I don't know how I will vote in
November but I sure am tired of being Charlie Brown to my republican party's untrustworthy Lucy.
Jim Riley
Norton Shores MI
2 comments:
yup.
{Continued from above]
4.) We will stop enabling republicans to betray their convictions and their constituents.
I don't know about stopping. Dialing it back, yes.
But stopping it altogether? Well......
5.) Liberals will no longer run as republicans.
As long as we have a media that has taken it upon itself to tell us what they think we need to know (did anyone here know that there were five candidates in the Governor Column on the November ballot before I said anything?), you will still have progressives like Snyder running where they feel they will have the best chance of getting elected.
Once in a while, they may be honest and slap a "-d" after their name. If they're really gutsy, possibly a "-g" or even a "-s".
But the dangerous ones aren't running to score brownie points in their little circle of political friends. Die-hard progressives want power and will resort to pretty much anything, especially lying, to grab it.
Post a Comment