Enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend
--posted by Tony Garcia on 5/11/2006
I have been saying for a long time that the enemy of our enemy is not our friend. I believe that. Look at what it has done for us over the decades in foreign policy matters.
I believe that and I also believe that character matters. I will not support any candidate whose character is worse than mine. That is a pretty low bar. In my heart of hearts I believe Michele Bachmann has shown in many areas to be below that bar. There is too much that I know about her to prove otherwise...and sadly most of what she has done will get swept under the carpet because people have decided to put their party above it all.
However, the knee jerk reaction to jump to her next biggest competitor (presumed to be Wetterling) was missing some information. She lied to Tinklenberg just to pursue her own political career. Was that a mistake from inexperience? Could be, but she has never addressed this and thus forgiveness from anybody is not warranted.
That leaves a very narrow field to even begin to analyze. Tinklenberg (if he makes past the primary) and Binkowski. I'm not wild about either of those...anymore than I was wild about G.H.W. Bush vs. Bill Clinton vs. Ross Perot in 1992.
The governor's race was also equally unpalatable in 1998. A moderate at best who I don't believe could tell the truth about his positions to save his life vs. a socialist, anti-business partisan vs. a straight-shooting moderate who was going to be an embarassment to all.
Yes, I hope Bachmann loses. My ideal situation is that some fiscal conservative will come out and run in the general and that dark horse will win. My less fantastical panacea is that someone runs a None of the Above campaign that wins the majority. I have to wait to see what shakes out over the long haul, but I must be enthusiastic about the person to vote for them. I fell into the very trap many people in politics fall into, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" and to vote anti-anything gains nothing.
So, here it is. I was wrong to throw my support behind Wetterling (though my money is still on a GOP loss). I will advocate people to not vote in the 6th CD because none of the choices seem to be deserving of representing the public.
11 Comments:
"I will advocate people to not vote in the 6th CD because none of the choices seem to be deserving of representing the public."
LOL!
You do that; 'cause the only people who are taking anything you say seriously at this point are the types of mouthbreathing morons who are capable of mounting a write-in campaign for Al Franken in the 6th.
Oh shit, there I go giving you ideas...
Swiftee-
I appreciate your enthusiasm for the Republican Party. I am a Republican, and I doubt I'll ever change that. However, let us consider the case of Ernie Fletcher, the GOP Governor of Kentucky.
Right now, he is under indictment for "three misdemeanor charges for conspiracy, official misconduct and political discrimination."
Basically, Fletcher paid off political supporters with state jobs and worked to remove political opponents or demote political opponents from state employment.
If the election were held today, would you vote for Ernie Fletcher over (let's assume he's the endorsed candidate) a libertarian party, constitution party, or independant candidate to avoid a Democratic governor?
Tony,
YOU ARE EITHER INCREDIBLY NAIVE OR INCREDIBLY FOOLISH. In the 24 years I have been of voting age, there has not been one candidate in any party that would meet my ideals for platform, philosophy, conservativism, liberty or ethics.
Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich were probably closest.
As a result I stayed out of politics for over 20 years (although I voted in most elections). In 2003 I GREW UP AND REALIZED HOW FOOLISH AND MORONIC THAT WAS.
The first realization was that a third party vote (except in a rare case where the candidate actually has a good chance) is not just a wasted vote, it truly is a vote for the opposition.
As an example, ask a Florida resident who voted for Nader if they are happy with the outcome of their choice. Instead of getting a president they agreed with on some things, they got a candidate they probably dreaded.
You may not like it, but that is irrelevant -- the fact is that in nearly all elections THERE ARE ONLY TWO CHOICES. As Dennis Prager says, voting for a third party candidate is a form of masturbation. It may feel good, but it accomplishes absolutely nothing for society.
The second realization was that given there are only two choices, logic dictates that ONE HAS TO BE BETTER THAN THE OTHER. It is highly unlikely that when you lay out how the candidates would vote on a variety of issues that you would agree or disagree with each equally.
Not only then did I realize that it's worth supporting a candidate that I agree with 70% of the time over one I agree with 20% of the time -- that's easy.
I also realized that it's worth supporting a candidate I disagree with 80% of the time if they are running against a candidate I disagree with 95% of the time.
In other words, if the only way to keep a liberal democrat from winning would be to run a RINO like Chafee, you bet I would get behind Chafee. It would do no good to nominate a more conservative candidate if they are only going to pull 30% of the vote.
Heck, if Diane Feinstein were running against Nancy Pelosi, you bet your ass I would be even be out there campaigning for Feinstein -- even though I feel like I need a shower after writing that.
Lastly, in regards to ethics...Winston Churchill said that Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others. Our system has inherent flaws that by nature makes it virtually impossible for anyone to remain pure. Whether it's playing loopholes in a system, trading votes to get something through, etc. I think your idealistic expectations are noble, but highly unrealistic.
For the sake of the party many of these people WOULD vote for Fletcher.
Nord, same comment as before. No, there are not only 2 choices. It seems that the 3rd choice did quite well in 1998!
So Marty, what's your point?
Do you think that I don't know that there are plenty of Republicans who are just as crooked as the competition?
Pahleeze! Trust me, I have a firm grip on the realities of life.
The reason I vote Republican 99% of the time is because every so often we get a crop of newcomers that put the brakes on the growth of government..if only for a limited period of time.
Unfortunately, the dream of shrinking the government down small enough to drown it in a constitutional bathtub seems as unrealistic as shopping around for someone who manages to hold on to a shred of ethical restraint.
So I do the best I can..I vote for the lesser of two evils, which 99% of the time excludes everyone but Republicans.
I HAVE voted for third party candidates several times, but not once for a Democrat, at least not one that I can remember.
I would have voted for Randy Kelly if I hadn't taken up my family and ran screaming from the city of St. Paul's limits after a complete nutjob\socialist city council was seated.
In fact, I'd have voted for him enthusiastically...it would have been an historical event!
I'm just having a lot of fun witnessing the mental breakdown going on here...looks like the strain was just too much for your pal Tony.
I prescribe bed rest and quiet...lots of quiet.
I just wanted to guage how you balance morality and ethics, electability and ideology.
You could have a criminal (white collar crime) tax cutting Republican who can win (I'm certain it's happened before, I mean, Andrew Jackson killed people) versus a fiscally liberal, socially conservative Evangelical Christian Independant who can't win or a socaialist Democrat who will win if enough people vote for the Independence guy. Do I vote for the white collar criminal just to help stem the tide of socialism for a few more years? I say no, just because electing any kind of ethically challenged person will hurt us in other races.
Swiftee, In getting ready for our show I reread your comment...I have some questions about "mouthbreathing morons"...
If they were "nosebreathing" would they not be morons?
How do people talk without breathing through their mouths?
Would that make everyone "mouthbreathing" unless they were like Stephen Hawking?
No, there are plenty of morons who use their noses for breathing when their fingers aren't buried in them to the knuckle..but your Grade A, USDA Choice moron leaves his mouth agape to accomodate a free-flowing drool stream.
Stephen Hawking gets a pass because, well because he's a Grade A USDA Choice (or the English equivalent)genius.
I'd mop drool for him anyday.
Don't know what it means, but as I was reading your Hawking comment I thought you were going to say 'USDA Choice Beef' or something of that line.
Do what I did during my wandering from the DFL--vote Independence. Most of the Independence folk are decent sorts, libertarianish live-and-let-live types. Their unifying principle is that neither party is very good, which seems to be axiomatic.
I can't blame you for not voting for Wetterling; I didn't vote for Rod Grams in 2000 when I couldn't bring myself to vote for Mark Dayton. And I didn't vote for Norm Coleman in '98 when I was livid at the party choosing Skip Humphrey. And I didn't vote for TPaw in 2002 when I couldn't imagine voting for Roger Moe.
(I did vote for Arne Carlson back in '94; insert your own joke here.)
At any rate, I recommend voting third-party this time out. It's a way of still voicing your opinion on the matter, and it's better than just skipping the ballot slot.
Post a Comment
<< Home