TexasCHLforum.com

sjfcontrol wrote:Would you all still feel that way if it means that White wins the election?

Yes, I would. Because it meant I voted with a clear conscience, I voted based on my beliefs, and I did not compromise my principles. I might be mad at those who simply voted for the party, but I'm usually worked up about that anyway.

I chided those who voted for Perot over Bush 41, which gave us 8 years of Clinton. That was based on the idealism of youth and still hewing to the R party line. Looking back, I don't think a second term for Bush 41 would have been any better than Clinton's first term. Plus, that would have pushed Clinton's two terms (and he would have had two, even if he were elected in 1996) forward to ending in 2004. Think about that for just a minute. Frightening, isn't it?

I'm not one to usually "what if..." too much, but that's what I now think of the 1992 presidential election. It isn't exactly an apples-to-apples comparison for us now, but I think it can inform us of the possibilities. Again, after weighing the issues, I voted for Perry last week. Some would say I compromised by not voting for Kathie Glass, but I was drawn to Perry for more reasons than a fear of a Bill White governorship.

Thread Drift alert: Any of you SA people hear Hardberger's ads for White? Basically "We've never had a governor from San Antonio, so vote for Bill White, because he grew up here."

texas1234 wrote:Voting on principle is a good thing, but for your own special interest you have to look at the numbers, if Kathie Glass has no chance of winning and she doesnt, you are throwing your vote away.

txmatt wrote:Voting third party has its place but not in a tight race where there is a clear lesser of two evils.

I'm putting both of these quotes together because I think they illustrate the frustration that we who no longer strongly identify with one of the major parties feel. Please forgive a short bio:

When I was a kid, Ronald Reagan was (booming, echoing voice here) THE PRESIDENT. He took office just before I turned 10, and was president forever (it seemed), and I liked it that way. I was a red-blooded, to-the-bone, elephant-owning Republican. Now that I'm a bit older, I no longer identify with the R's. I flirted with the D's a while back, but ran screaming from that camp.

Since then, I've found an uneasy home in Libertarianism - the closest "party affiliation" I can find to what I believe politically. Every time an election comes around, I have to evaluate the R's, the D's and the 'third party-ers' to see who will be the best choice to represent my interests and what I hope for our state and nation (locally or globally). And I am under no illusions about any candidate being able to ignore special interests.

I'm not registered as a Libertarian, and I likely never will register. So when I went into the voting booth last week, I had a couple of hard choices to make. Do I vote for Glass on principle, or Perry out of pragmatism? Do I vote down-ballot on principle or pragmatism, because there are some offices there that need change, too. For governor I chose pragmatism this time, even though I didn't in the primary.

Voting third party does have it's place - even in tight races, even when there is a clear lesser of two evils. And I will never say that you are "throwing your vote away" if you vote third party. This is a private and sacred right. Try and convince me all you want with facts and figures and the reason why I shouldn't vote outside the R and D parties when it is close, but don't belittle me because I vote on principle over pragmatism.

It took a long time to make this bed we're laying in, and it's going to take a long time to get out of it. If it takes one candidate here, and another over there to feel the discomfort of just barely winning because a third party candidate "took some of his votes", or another candidate lost because some people "threw their votes away on someone who couldn't win", then so be it.

It is my vote, it goes to the person I believe has earned it, or to the person that I believe can best serve the people affected by that office.

sjfcontrol wrote:

mgood wrote:But Al Gore saved us when he invented the internet.

And we now get our news from Bloggers!

Maybe you do. I get my news from the cranky old men at the coffee shop:
Gent #1: "That dad-burned ol' librul news media is gonna ruin this country. Lookit how they luuuv Obammer!"
Gent #2: "Yup."
Gent #3: "Didja hear they're poisinin' Glenn Beck?"
Gent #4: "Wouldn't surprise me if'n it wadn't Katie Couric her-own-self doin' it."

It would be funny if it weren't so true.

The hyperbole of it - not the actual content. Though I do have my suspicions about the media in general.