This is a few years old (from 2004, I think) but it's still very appropriate. It's from Mike Rosen re: why party trumps person. It's more important now than it ever was. I, too, am quite disgruntled with most republicans...and politicians in general. But I agree a vote for Tancredo, while it might make you "feel" good and principaled, is a de-facto vote for Hickenlooper. An objective analysis just can't come to any other conclusion. There are only so many votes out there and the ONE candidate who gets the most votes gets to live in the governor's mansion...regardless of how you "feel" about voting party lines. My suggestion is, don't cut off your nose to spite your face.
For all you gun guys, I've already pointed out in another thread (or maybe it was earlier in this thread...I don't remember) that Tancredo is no friend to gun owners. I've voted for Tancredo in the past when he was our US representative. But I also remember his betrayal to gun owners and I'll never vote for him again...unless he's the "R" candidate.
Here's Rosen's piece (bold paragraphs are mine):
"Why Party Trumps Person". (from 2004)
With just 80 days to go before the election, it's time for my quadrennial column on party vs. person. I've been offering and updating this polemic for more than 20 years. For veteran voters, this may be review; for rookies, perhaps, a new concept.
A time-honored cliche heard every election year goes something like this: "I'm an independent thinker; I vote the person, not the party." This pronouncement is supposed to demonstrate open-mindedness and political sophistication on the part of the pronouncer. It's your vote, cast it any way you like - or not at all. But idealism and naivete about the way our electoral process and system of government works shouldn't be mistaken for wisdom or savvy.
For better or worse, we have a two-party system. And party trumps person. Either a Republican, George W. Bush, or a Democrat, John Kerry, is going to be elected president in November. No one else has a chance.
Not Ralph Nader, not the Libertarian candidate, nor the Communist, nor the Green. Minor party candidates are sometimes spoilers - like Nader costing Gore the presidency in 2000 - but they don't win presidential elections. Ross Perot got 20 million popular votes in 1992, and exactly zero Electoral College votes.
In Europe's multiparty, parliamentary democracies, governing coalitions are formed after an election. In our constitutional republic, the coalitions are formed first.
The Republican coalition includes, for the most part, middle- and upper-income taxpayers (but not leftist Hollywood millionaires and George Soros), individualists who prefer limited government, pro-market and pro-business forces, believers in American exceptionalism and a strong national defense, social-issues conservatives and supporters of traditional American values.
The Democratic coalition is an alliance of collectivists, labor unions (especially the teachers' unions), government workers, academics, plaintiffs-lawyers, lower- and middle-income net tax-receivers, most minorities, feminists, gays, enviros, and activists for various anti-capitalist, anti-business, anti-military, anti-gun, one-world causes.
I say party trumps person because regardless of the individual occupying the White House, the coalition will be served.
A Democratic president, whether a liberal or a moderate (conservative Democrats, if any still exist, can't survive the nominating process), can operate only within the political boundaries of his party and its coalition.
The party that wins the presidency gets to staff all the discretionary positions in the executive and judicial branches of government. Members of its coalition are awarded vital policy-making government jobs, judgeships, ambassadorships and appointments to boards and commissions, as well as a host of plum jobs handed out to thosewho have political IOUs to cash in.
A vote for Bush is a vote for the Republican agenda and conservative players in key posts. A vote for Kerry is a vote for the influence of the National Education Association, the National Organization for Women, the American Civil Liberties Union and the likes of Al Sharpton and Michael Moore.
The legislative branch is no different. After the individual members of a new Congress have been seated, a figurative nose count is taken and the party with the most noses wins. That victory carries with it control of all committee and subcommittee chairmanships, the locus of legislative power.
Now, let's say you're a registered Republican voter who clearly prefers the Republican philosophy of governance. And you're a good-natured, well-intentioned person who happens to like an individual Democrat, a Senate candidate, who's somewhat conservative. You decide to cross party lines and vote for him.
As it turns out, he wins, beating a Republican and giving the Democrats a one-vote majority, 51-49, in the U.S. Senate.
Congratulations! You just got Ted Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, Dianne Feinstein and Hillary Clinton as key committee chairs, and a guarantee that your Republican legislative agenda will be stymied.
That's the way the process works. Does this mean that in a two-party system like ours it comes down to choosing between the lesser of two evils? You bet it does. That's not to say that either party is really "evil," that's just an expression.
If we had 280 million custom-tailored minor parties, everyone could find his perfect match.
But that's not practical.
You can be a purist and cast your vote symbolically with a boutique party, or be a player and settle for the least imperfect of the Republican or Democrat alternatives.
Your vote, your choice.
Everything Rosen talks about is just as true on the state level: the governor appoints all kinds of people that have influence over your life. Just keep these points in mind when you consider for whom your going to cast your vote.
In a perfect world, I wouldn't agree with this. In this world, I do.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Ranger
