Home > Politics > One Democrat I won’t be voting for

One Democrat I won’t be voting for

October 15, 2006

It’s no secret that I am quite disgusted with the Republican party.  Starting with the Reagan administration, the Grand Old Party has been slowly taken over by anti-science Bible-thumpers who seem intent on bringing the second coming or at least the end of the world.  And as someone observed, the strongest predicter of how Bush will go on any issue is whatever way reduces personal liberty.

I’m not that happy with the Democratic party, either.  They have some great people (who have been much maligned by the Republican propaganda machine) but they also tolerate people whom they should eject.  Their catapult is getting rusty and there are several Democrats I’d like to use it on.  In fact, that is the topic of a future post that may be quite amusing to some of my readers.

It might seem obvious to “send a message” by voting third-party but the only one that’s even close is the Libertarians and I’m too lib-rool for that.  I do think every legislator needs at least one high-level Libertarian staffer who will argue with them over every bill they vote on.  It would help filter out some of the extremely idiotic spending and foreign adventurism.

Fifty years ago I might have been a Republican but on balance, today I have to go with Democrat.  All arguments to the contrary I have to vote for the best party I think can win.  Nationally I could vote Green but they really have no chance.  Idealism feels good but it won’t stop the juggernaut. 

Except… in Illinois we really have no choice for governor.  Both the Democrat Rod Blagaojevich and the Republican Judy Bar Topinka appear to be as corrupt (and possibly incompetent) as can possibly be. 

A recent debate at the Chicago Tribune between the two would have made me pull out my hair, if I had any. While the Tribune hasn’t made an endorsement yet, it looks like it will be of the “lesser of two weevels” kind.  Lazy, corrupt governors seems to be an Illinois specialty.

Conspicuously absent from the debate (because he was not invited) was the Illinois Green Party Candidate, Rich Whitney.  His platform could inspire our state to build more long-term environmental policies and correct our broken school financing. And from what I’ve been able to gather elsewhere he is apparently not a corrupt windbag, which would be a real change for our state.  In fact, he’s a pretty sharp guy, so I’m voting Green for Illinois governor. 

Imagine what a lightning bolt that would be!  Both the Republican and Democratic parties would have to think that one over for a long time…

Categories: Politics
  1. Mina
    October 15, 2006 at 18:01 | #1

    I never understood the argument that you should vote for someone who has a chance of passing. When’s the last time your candidate won by one vote? Your one vote is statistically insignificant no matter who you vote for.

  2. October 15, 2006 at 19:00 | #2

    We had a candidate in NH win the primary by one vote. His older, more experienced opponent demanded a recount and the vote disappeared. Then they drew lots and the other guy won. I am left to wonder what might have happened if anyone in the Party had wanted the younger guy to win. He might have received more than half of the votes for starters.

  3. October 15, 2006 at 19:51 | #3

    Admittedly one vote isn’t a huge influence on the ship of state, but if it’s listing to one direction and in danger of going gunwale under, I’ll put my weight on the opposite railing.  It’s all I’ve got.

    There is a saying “no drop of rain feels any responsibility for a flood” and I suppose the same is true of positive outcomes as well.

  4. October 16, 2006 at 09:07 | #4

    Just read both candidates platforms, hell they might as well get married.  You have my sympathy but then again the same crap in this state. All the right buz words, a whole lot of circle speak, blame it on the other guy. Professional politicians are the ruin of this country, I can’t name one that I would trust to babysit my dog.

  5. October 22, 2006 at 09:20 | #5

    Sigh… I really thought the Chicago Tribune would have the courage to endorse Whitney after describing Blagojevich and Topinka as “bad” and “worse”.  But they wouldn’t touch him because he favors concealed-carry (another point in his favor, in my view). 

    “Yes, you have a third choice on the ballot.  Polls suggest Green Party candidate Rich Whitney may benefit from a sizeable protest against the major party candidates.  Few voters know much about him.

    Those who like his views on clean government and education may be surprised to learn he supports allowing people to carry guns openly in public.  Or that he would allow people to carry concealed weapons if he can’t get the legislature to allow openly carried weapons.

    Yes, I knew he had stated that, in a moment of blue-sky thinking.  But it isn’t part of his platform, where he outlines a solid, multi-point approach to reducing urban crime.  It isn’t in the platform because he knows there’s no chance of ever passing it.

    Those who believe in the platform of the Green Party will probably find cause to vote for him despite his views on guns.  But as a protest vote, well, it might feel good, but the practical impact will be to preserve the status quo in the governor’s office.

    That office is sagging under the status quo.  The Tribune endorses Judy Baar Topinka because the governor’s office desperately needs a change.”

    Right.  A tiny, incremental change.  A change perceptable if you make a mark where it is now, and then come back in two years with a friggin’ magnifying glass!


Comments are closed.