Loading ...WILL R’S GIVE D’S A WOODY?
I’m noticing a trend this morning, for what it’s worth. Republicans who are crossing over and voting for Hillary Clinton are also voting for Jill Long Thompson and Woody Myers for Congress. They say they are doing it to stick it to the Democratic establishment. It may not be enough to make a difference, but it definitely makes life interesting.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:29 am
It just proves that we are tired of the same ol’ people playing the same ol’ political games.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:15 am
I’m a Republican, and it’s nice to know that people have died throughout our history to ensure our freedom to vote so that a bunch of malcontents and troublemakers can interfere in a political process that they really have no stake in besides trying to set up a weak opponent for John McCain.
If the Democrats were doing this to us, we would be screaming how unfair it is, but because Fat Limbaugh said it’s okay… how many of my fellow Republicans that are doing this also go to church on Sunday and swear by the Golden Rule?
May 6th, 2008 at 9:47 am
Please. The media chose our candidate for us. There were more conservative candidates running, but they were not allowed to have exposure in the media. Now we have three socialists running for President, including a RINO who enjoys nothing more than spitting in the eye of his conservative base.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:58 am
I consider myself a moderate…in yesterday’s world I would have been JFK Democrat. In today’s world my positions don’t square well with any party. Pro-choice Republican? Free-trade Democrat? Anti-drug Libertarian?
I simply can’t imagine Limbaugh suggesting that anyone vote for a Clinton for any reason.
For what it’s worth, I think a McCain-Obama presidential contest in fall will lead to both guys playing to the middle instead of to the extremes (as presidential politics have been since 1968). That kind of a campaign might actually quiet the partisan bomb-throwers and bring some real solutions to Social Security and energy policy.
Or so one could hope.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Russ, I am a second generation American. My grandfather worked in a coal mine and never missed his opportunity to vote when he became a citizen.
-
I don’t listen to Limbaugh, I have my own ideals and if my party doesn’t give me a choice and I am CONCERNED for the future of this country, and I can have a say? Then I will.
-
And as far as the people who go to church and crossover for today’s election I will say this, there are lots of people who sit in church and think that guarantees them a spot in heaven rather than treat people right.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:37 am
I see Woody Myers winning by a very close margin. I was a Carson “man” but changed my mind right before voting.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:41 am
When voting at a church this morning, I observed that the parking lot had not seen that many cars since Easter.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:47 am
If the Republican crossover is as large as being reported it will be interesting to see where the 7th District race ends up.
The Chaos voters going with Hillary will presumably not go with Andre but may split with David O and Meyers thus giving the 7th to Andre but who knows.
By midnight, when Center turns in all their ballots we’ll know who won.
Bets are on Andre at this point.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
I have no problem with cross-over voting. If the goal is to use your vote to choose the correct candidate, you should be able to vote at every step of the game, on all sides of the political spectrum. Party affiliation shoud have no influence upon each citizen participating in choosing the correct President.
.
Where I have a problem is when party primaries allow only card-carrying members to vote. A Representative Republic is not about which party wins - it’s about giving the citizens control over who is elected, regardless of party affiliations.
.
So, while I may be disenchanted by our corporate, media selected choices - on both sides of the aisle, I fully support any and all crossover voting. We have a right to choose our own leaders. Excercise that right to your fullest advantage, especially if you can lawfully eliminate unfavorable opposition in the process. It’s our right. Don’t let arbitrarily drawn party lines get in your way.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Also, before I forget, I heard a sound byte from Hillary in NC yesterday - she said that Americans want a President who will take care of them and their families.
.
Has she even read our Constitution? What planet is she on?
May 6th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Shorebreak, her words are not even code any more. She says loud and clear that she is for a socialist form of government. Our county has turned from the majority being earners to the majority wanting entitlements. She and Obama are here to help.
By the way, wouldn’t it be interesting if the Republican crossover voters actually helped the 7th get a qualified democrat candidate? Wow, talk about wierd politics. How can the majority of the 7th voters even begin to see Andre as a viable candidate to represent them? He can hardly represent himself.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Shorebreak, we should consider ourselves lucky to be able to vote in an open primary. In the not so very distant past there were not primaries like we know them today. It was strictly a party affair close to those outside the party organization. The system worked from the ground up: Precincts to Wards to Counties to Districts to State to National. All had a hand in the process.
Today, I’d say some party candidates today would prefer to go back to the old setup.
We do not have a constitutional right to vote in the primary. That right is left up to the individual parties. When they no longer want open primaries and go back to the way it used to be then people either get involved in politics with a party or start their own with their own rules.
Our founding fathers never made provisions for political parties and our President was elected by Congress, not the people.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
if i don’t get to vote for whom i want when i want them i’m disenfranchised. this is amereica. i can be a democrat today and a republican tomorrow.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
CJ - The reason that Congress elected the President was because the President’s job was to run the Federal Government, not the country. That premise, in conjunction with non-delegated authority being divested upon the states, assured continued decentralization which was based upon the initial premise of our Constitutional construct - preservation of individual liberty and protection of the sovereign rights of states under a federal construct, via limitation of powers.
.
A good read of the Federalist Papers is well worth anyones while if they want to understand the difference between the basis of our system and where we are today.
.
Now, as a result of the paradigm shift away from the original premise of limited government, what we have is a top-heavy, centralized executive with branches that reach into our lives on a daily basis, where states no longer have direct representation that is answerable to the directives of sovereign state authority.
.
With regards to voting in primaries, clearly I understand that these are party functions, separate from protected voting rights. My point is that my preference is for citizens to be able to exercise their vote at every crossing, regardless of party. If the door is open, use it.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
I’m also hearing Republicans switching to support Carolene Mays.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Shorebreak where did you study government? I think you missed some classes or your fingers are not typing what the brain is thinking.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
MD - can you explain where i went wrong? Thanks.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Shorebreak, Congress has never elected the president under the US Constitution. The electoral college has always had that responsibility. Remember 2000?
The individual states still get to choose how their electors are selected. Theoretically, a state could designate its Congressional Representatives and Senators as its electors and not even hold an election for President. But how well would THAT “state right” play?