Tis the Season...
...for elections!
We recently received letters in the mail telling us that we must join either the Republican or Democratic party to participate in the upcoming primary elections in Arizona. We are both registered independents or "no party". I used to be a registered Republican, but as an avid outdoorsman I found it best to distance myself from them a little. Support for the second amendment does not make a party "pro-outdoors". I won't even touch the weightier issues right now.
Anyway, I was wondering if any of you out there could weigh in with some valuable insight. First of all we were appalled at this rule that would force us to join one of these parties to be able to vote. We value the right to vote in our great country, especially in light of so many people throughout the world bearing the brunt of the consequences of political unrest. Democracy in the US may not be perfect but it does seem to work better than say Pakistan or Nepal. We also found that Arizona is not alone with this rule but many states force voters to choose a party for the primaries. Our question is why. Is there rationale for this? Please help us understand.
This is a big concern for us because one of our favorite candidates is a Democrat, and we are not overly excited to register as Democrats.
Who do you all like? Go ahead and make an intelligent case for your favorite.
I'm leaning toward Obama. Is it worth joining the Democrats to vote for who I think is authentic, intelligent, and capable. I know you might argue that he lacks experience, but couldn't this be a good thing in light of the experience of Rumsfield and Cheaney?
I'm also starting to like Huckabee more and more. Is it worth joining the Republicans to vote for a guy who seems to be down-to-earth and unafraid to tackle issues of faith?
Romney has the most hair, so he will probably win.
We appreciate any insights anyone has about the always entertaining season of elections.
We recently received letters in the mail telling us that we must join either the Republican or Democratic party to participate in the upcoming primary elections in Arizona. We are both registered independents or "no party". I used to be a registered Republican, but as an avid outdoorsman I found it best to distance myself from them a little. Support for the second amendment does not make a party "pro-outdoors". I won't even touch the weightier issues right now.
Anyway, I was wondering if any of you out there could weigh in with some valuable insight. First of all we were appalled at this rule that would force us to join one of these parties to be able to vote. We value the right to vote in our great country, especially in light of so many people throughout the world bearing the brunt of the consequences of political unrest. Democracy in the US may not be perfect but it does seem to work better than say Pakistan or Nepal. We also found that Arizona is not alone with this rule but many states force voters to choose a party for the primaries. Our question is why. Is there rationale for this? Please help us understand.
This is a big concern for us because one of our favorite candidates is a Democrat, and we are not overly excited to register as Democrats.
Who do you all like? Go ahead and make an intelligent case for your favorite.
I'm leaning toward Obama. Is it worth joining the Democrats to vote for who I think is authentic, intelligent, and capable. I know you might argue that he lacks experience, but couldn't this be a good thing in light of the experience of Rumsfield and Cheaney?
I'm also starting to like Huckabee more and more. Is it worth joining the Republicans to vote for a guy who seems to be down-to-earth and unafraid to tackle issues of faith?
Romney has the most hair, so he will probably win.
We appreciate any insights anyone has about the always entertaining season of elections.
posted by CHUSKA NATIVES at
8:36 AM
7 Comments:
jess, i have no comment on that rule, sounds pretty communist to me. as for who i like, i will NOT vote for any republican. while i do like huckabee, the taste of bush has left a rotten taste i my mouth. im not sure i like obama either. while i agree that he is a fresh face with fresh ideas, this also means we might have zero idea of what his views may be. he has no track record good or bad. he could be a lunatic, there is no way to tell. but i like him more than the others. all of the others except for hillary. ive checked up on some of hillary's views and they all check out for the most part. furthermore, i would be happy to have bill clinton as the man behind the scenes so to speak. i dont care how people view bill, i believe he has done more since his presidency than anyone in recent memory save jimmy carter. in this age of human suffering, that speaks volumes to me. and if its fresh views you want, you cant get much fresher than the first woman president ever. if only she could get that stick out of her butt. have fun in the islands . aloha
doug
By
Anonymous, at 1:09 PM
i changed my mind, i like obama. i wont vote republican, so i think im going with obama. hear about Ron Paul? hope youre having fun.
aloha
doug
By
Anonymous, at 7:19 PM
I think half the states require this for some reason or another. The biggest is for tracking/record keeping for the parties, see in what areas they're strongest and where they need to campaign more - waste money. And they only want their "base" to make the nomination, they don't want a bunch of independants directing how their party works and who represents it. They feel they will have their chance in the general election. If there was a third party, they would request the same in these states. The elections are interesting this year though. Its too bad the media ruined the chances for the best candidates for the democrates. Richardson was by far the most qualified. And Biden and Dobbs blew away the so called front runners in the debates if you want substance. Biden started a habit of apoligizing for actually answering a question, since Clinton, Obama, and Edwards never could. But, now we are stuck with the media's favorites for the democrates, the ones they promoted for free for the past year. The Republicans seem to be more wide open, kinda good the media is colder to them, we actually can choose from their best canidates. I like Huckabee too, anyone that can play Mustang Sally on a bass guitar and turn around and speak in the class of Bill Clinton definitly needs to be considered. Romney scares me more everytime I hear him, about running the presidency like a company, surrounding him with a board. Give me a president that can make his own decisions, give me a Teddy Roosevelt. Guilliani doesn't care about any state unless it has enough delegates that warrants him campaigning there. Then you have McCain, someone who has a history of working across the isle, wants to eliminate pork barrel projects, and has put forth the most detailed plan of any candidate for the Middle East. The most ardent democrat I know commented to me that he may have to seriously consider voting for McCain if he was in the general election after the Iowa results came in with Obama edging out Clinton. Obama has the flash and catch phrases, I just don't get the feeling he has any substance behind them. Anyway, the elections are interesing this year, maybe we can get a good third party candidate in the general. Hope you had a good time on your trip. Zac
By
Anonymous, at 7:09 PM
Doug---
What made you change your mind? Ron Paul seems to be an interesting cat. He should be a third party candidate.
Zac---
I kinda understand the rule of joining a party for the primaries. I guess I'm going to have to grin and bear it as I sign on with the Dems. I have had enough of the Republicans pillaging the great outdoors, not to mention ignoring the poor. I agree that the media has played too large a role. I also thought that Biden had some of the most common sense and specific answers in the debates. I worry that Obama's lack of specificity will catch up with him. I still am on his bandwagon because he seems intelligent and compassionate and will be less likely to resort to the fear and reactivity that we have seen the past seven years. I don't trust Hillary, but it seems the media has turned on her the past month or so while always giving Obama a free pass. I don't understand why the socail/religious conservatives have not united behind Huckabee. He seems like a better fit than W ever was, but some of his comments lately have been concerning. McCain seems like he could get-r-done but the lack of hair will doom him. Sadly, I would, as of right now, predict a Romney verse Clinton general election, and I will definitely be looking for a third option.
Jess
By
CHUSKA NATIVES, at 10:08 PM
Where are the insights from Riggs and Holtsclaw when we need them? I know you guys "know what's wrong with this country."
jess
By
CHUSKA NATIVES, at 10:10 PM
jess, nothing made me change my mind, im going with hillary. fo sho. glad to see you had such a great trip. doug
By
Anonymous, at 2:19 PM
"Riggs" chimes in
Seems like Obama is climbing higher in this race than any of us foresaw a year ago. But it also seems as if he is not being asked some of the tougher questions that we really need to know before we go to the polls on Feb. 5. Here are a few that I would like to know the answer to. Since some of you seem to be Obama folks, maybe you can give us some Obama insights into the issues. So have at it.
1. Since you voted against Judge Roberts and Alito to the Court, can you name a justice on the current court who you do admire? And is there something about record or character of Roberts and Alito that caused you to reject them?
Roberts and Alito were confirmed with solid majorities. Would you not agree that your votes on these nominations cast doubts on the validity of your claims to a new bi-partisanship?
If nominated, what type of Supreme Court justices would you nominate? Would you have a pro-choice litmus test for abortion, as you seemed to suggest in a Democratic debate last fall?
2. "There is no red America, there is no blue America. There is only the United States of America." Stirring words, delivered passionately many times on the campaign trail over the past year. However, what in your background demonstates that these words will be a part of your governing philosophy? What actions and causes have you championed that demonstrate the bipartisanship that you espouse?
3. The pastor of your segregated church supports "allegiance to black leadership" and support for the "black values system". Hmm... that would not come across too well is you inserted "white" in place of "black" in that context, would it? He also presented an award to Louis Farrakan, calling him a "great man". Do you agree with this? In your remarkable 2004 Convention speech you said, "There is not a black America. There is not a white America. There is only the United States of America." Do you think you need to convince your pastor of this? Do you sense a dichotomy between your stirring words and your behavior (associating with people who are known for racial separatism and ant-Semitism)?
4. While the Democratic Senate approved Attorney General Michael Mukasey, you spoke out against him . . . .but then missed the vote. Would you have voted for him? Judging from your elusive words, it appears not. But why not? Again, does this not reflect the partisanship that you have consistently railed against on the stump?
5. Why have you missed so many votes as a Senator? And that refers to your years as a state senator in Illinois. When the issues are hot, it seems that you have no opinion until it becomes clear which way the winds are blowing.
6. In your 2004 Senate campaign, you spoke little of Iraq. When things went poorly there in 2005 and '06, you maintained that you had always been an outspoken critic (and not a senator, in which case you would have had to declare your convictions in a vote). In 2006, as a senator, you voted against a John Kerry proposal to withdraw all forces by 2007. Yet in 2007, you voted in favor of getting them all out by 2008. Now, when things have turned again in Iraq, your stump speech focuses more on the faltering economy, your new stimulus package, etc. So. . . Why the changes on Iraq? Do you realize now that militarily things have changed on the ground? Do you still support pulling out all combat forces with 12 months of assuming office? Who will protect the non-combat advisers and diplomats that you want to leave behind?
7. You have said you will speak to the leaders of Cuba and Iran. What would you say?
8. You have said that you will close Guantanamo. Why? Where will you put these guys?
9. You talk alot about the erosion of civil rights under the Bush administration. Would you repeal the Patriot Act? Why or why not? If so, do you believe that the Patriot Act has had any affect in stemming the tide of terrorim in the US since 9/11? How would you balance civil rights and national security?
10. When asked what Clinton-era officials you would bring into an Obama administration, you cracked a great line that you hoped Hillary would be one of them. Good line, again. But what is the answer? Name names please. Will we see a revival of Holbrooke, Albright, Clark or Richardson on your foreign policy team? Any Republicans in the mix? Hagel? McCain? And who might be a VP on your ticket?
By
Anonymous, at 5:58 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home