Marokai, how is this any different then Liberals voting for Blue Dogs like Jason Altmire, Heath Shuler, Jim Marshall or Gene Taylor? Or supporting very conservative candidates in Red states because they are the only ones that can win there? Because having your party in controll increases the liklihood that you will get some of your policies enacted. Look I me I support primarying of all Amnesty supporters but only in Red states and give people like the Maine ladies a free pass. Why? Because that is the best I can hope for in Maine. Whereas I know we can do better then some of these Amnesty supporters in Red or Swing States. I oppose most pork barrelers regardless of state or ideology. Those are the only two real deal breakers for me. Other then I don't give a damn if the candidate is Pro-Gay or Pro-Abortion, or whatever. I supported Lynn Jenkins in the general election in KS-02 for the same reason. She was a tax hiker and pro-choice. However she was tough on border security, pork spending and got us the House seat back.
It's not really the fact that you're supporting him that irks me. You can support him if you like, and it makes sense to support someone over another if the "other" is someone who is so contrary to your beliefs, though it bothers me a teeny tiny bit because I don't really think people actually understand anything about Scott Brown other than "he's kinda pro-choice and he's not a Democrat" I'm willing to let that go.
My beef with Vepres is that he seems to base all of his political endorsements or his positions or his choices of targets to criticize soley on who is in power. If Republicans controlled congress and the Presidency right now, I'd happily bet you fifty dollars he'd be cheering on the Democrat. Vepres' sort of backward idea of how a government should be arranged is a recipe for an utterly deadlocked and paralyzed nation that accomplishes nothing but the most watered-down slap-on-the-wrist reforms and changes.
But that's neither here nor there.
My problem is a broader one, one I brought up with you to begin with. People are supporting the Republican to play a part in the grander scheme of things. Which is
what? The right-wing opposition right now seems, to me, to be a movement based on complete and utter ignorance and an unwillingness to go along with any deviation from the status-quo. It doesn't care what the situation is, it doesn't care what the facts are, it doesn't care if something is effective or not, the movement does not
care about the truth. And it's let to the Republican party having
no message.
no policy proposals to flaunt,
nothing at all to run on.
What they are running on is, "stop the Democrats" and I simply find that to be absurd. The Republicans aren't running on anything at all, they have no ideas of their own, no solutions whatsoever, but people will happily line up in support of someone who, Hoffman from New York as one of my previous examples, doesn't care about policymaking or any of that complicated "work" stuff.
It simply baffles me that a party that has proposed absolutely nothing of it's own can actually run and possibly win on such a message, and that people such as yourself justify this
complete lack of substance by saying "well, maybe when he gets in, we'll come up with something!" It's dangerous, and it's irresponsible, and it's just
stupid.
Poll
