Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Heretic-The conservative case for voting "democrat".

Heretic-The conservative case for voting "democrat".
(Note-This discussion does not include the Presidency or national candidates. Because of unique Presidential powers, "best of the worst" is our only option)

In August of this year, the MSM reported the death of longtime democrat Senator Jim Jeffords.
Coincidentally, his death was one week before the Florida primary election which elected Charlie Crist as the democrat nominee for governor.
It occurred to me that, not long ago, both men were respected republicans.
A review of their political activities shows they were not just turncoats.
They were hardly even moderates.
They were liberals hiding under the cloak of the republican party.
And it worked...for them.
How'd that work out for us republicans?

Today, we face a decision on whether to support the republican nominee for governor, Rick Snyder, and other faux republicans in Michigan.
I can't list all the policies that led me to ask this question, but I'd like to open a discussion about how we conservatives (especially here in Michigan) should respond to the hijacking of our party.

The advice we hear from the media and the establishment party is to "come together" and, if necessary, support the "best of the worst".
Most would agree the Rick Snyder is less liberal than Mark Schauer.
But Gov. Snyder (and other republicans) has enacted some very liberal programs, including the tax increases, expansions of state government and the expansion of (totally unfunded) Medicaid here in Michigan.
All solid liberal democrat concepts.
All solidly pushed through by our republican governor and republican house and senate.

When we fiscal conservatives express dissatisfaction, we are cautioned that if Snyder is replaced by a democrat, terrible things will befall Michigan.
Like more tax increases?
Like more expansion of state government?
Like more union pension bailouts that retain the economically suicidal defined benefit plans?
Like more unfunded expansions of healthcare programs?
Like more, expanded attacks on conservatives within our republican state party?

An argument might be made that if we are getting democrat policies, maybe it would be better if democrats voted for and enacted those policies.
An argument might be made that continuing to support those politicians who have consistently stabbed us in the back is a recipe for more stab wounds.

Here's my topic for discussion:
If we can't support some republicans for elective office, what should we do?

Our choices seem simple:
1. Hold your nose and vote GOP.
2. Vote for a third party.
3. Don't vote for anyone in a particular election.
All the above are simply wasting out vote.
Or this.... 
4. Vote for the democrat-Actually voting to elect a democrat.

 What might the benefits be in actually supporting or electing certain democrats?

1. We would be sending a clear message that we've had enough.
No more naive Charlie Brown hoping (against all evidence) that Lucy will let us kick the football.
In the past we republicans have quietly assured our leaders that how they vote does not matter.
We can be counted on supporting anyone.
Even those who consistently betray our values.
Those days are gone.
Listen and deliver on your promises or you're gone too.

2. We'd get better governance. (at least in Michigan)
Republicans are more effective as a minority.
Republicans have been best at stopping democrat overreach when in the minority.
When in control, they seem to morph into big government, big spending democrats.
Seven republican senators joined every democrat to pass the Medicaid expansion.
Would they have done so if a democrat was governor?

3. Democrats would get FULL credit for enacting their liberal ideas.
When republicans support and vote for liberal policies it gives the democrats cover.
Let democrats take credit for their votes. (See above 7 republicans)

4. We will stop enabling republicans to betray their convictions and their constituents.
If we continue to vote for those who have betrayed us, it will reinforce their belief that they are bullet-proof.
No need to listen to conservatives.
Only moderates.
And even liberals.
Why should we continue to support those who betray us?

5. Liberals will no longer run as republicans.
They will see they can't get elected and move to the party that suits them best.
The chances of electing a Jeffords, Crist (or a Snyder?) will be less likely.
Maybe it was worth surviving the Carter presidency in order to get the Ronald Reagan Presidency.

What about the downside?
1. We could end up like California or Illinois.

But is becoming a "disaster state" because of republican led baby-steps any better than getting there in big leaps by democrats?

I don't know how I will vote in November but I sure am tired of being Charlie Brown to my republican party's untrustworthy Lucy.

Jim Riley
Norton Shores MI


3 comments:

Jason Gillman said...

yup.

KG-1 said...

I think that it is important to address the points you've made here:

1.) We would be sending a clear message that we’ve had enough.

Oh, I'm of the strong opinion that message has been received by the kakistocracy 5x5. Their attitude is effectively, "So what! Where are they going to go?"

To a degree they have a point.

I've been asked for my $0.02 from people who are now just paying attention to the General Election. I give them the rundown of all five candidates (yes, there are actually FIVE candidates for Michigan Governor in 2014).

Even when asked point blank about whom to vote for, I don't tell them to "Vote for Candidate X". The information is right there in front of them and it is up to the dictates of their own conscience on specifically whom to (or not to) vote for in November.

Although, to be completely honest here, I have told them who I won't be voting for, regardless of if Hell freezes over.

2.) We’d get better governance. (at least in Michigan)

That's a 50/50 shot at best. Contrary to what the liberals/socialists/progressives/democrats/whatever-they-are-calling-themselves-this-week, gridlock is a preferable alternative to bad government.

But remember: Even the "minority party" can forget for what they stand for.

For example in Washington, the republican party controls only one house of the legislature. But that house is also where all appropriations originate.

This is Constitution 101 stuff here, and isn't that difficult for even a Trucker like myself to figure out.

But people with allegedly more education than I have, have not used that knowledge of utilizing the power of the purse to defund items that run contrary to what real Conservatives believe in.

Things like the EPA, Dept of Education and even Obamacare (just for starters) can easily be wiped out overnight by simply zeroing out their respective budgets.

Sure Harry Reid will try to bore us to death with one of his speeches and stonewall.

Sure Pres. B.O. will throw a temper tantrum and threatened to whip out his pen and Blackberry. But they don't initiate budgets, so good luck to them getting any traction on those threats.

You want money to run government, we did our part and here's the budget to prove it, now sign off on it.

Here in Michigan, do I need to remind anyone here that when Hurricane Jenny was running Michigan's economy and state budget into bedrock, it was a vote in the republican controlled senate that allowed the Michigan Income Tax to be hiked. Thank you, Mike Bishop for your assistance promoting the Granholm agenda. Michigan democrats are proud of you for your actions.

3.) Democrats would get FULL credit for enacting their liberal ideas.

In a sane and normal world, I would agree with you 100%. But in a world where the media-manipulated optics twist things around into a funhouse version of itself, 50+ years of democratic party rule in Detroit which inevitably led to its bankruptcy, hasn't done anything to change anyone's perceptions.

Forget graft, corruption and inept leadership.

If only the Lansing would've given Detroit just a little more money...everything would be right as rain in The D.

Good luck seeing anyone run as a Conservative, much less a republican in Detroit anytime in the foreseeable future.

{Continued below}

KG-1 said...

{Continued from above]

4.) We will stop enabling republicans to betray their convictions and their constituents.

I don't know about stopping. Dialing it back, yes.

But stopping it altogether? Well......

5.) Liberals will no longer run as republicans.

As long as we have a media that has taken it upon itself to tell us what they think we need to know (did anyone here know that there were five candidates in the Governor Column on the November ballot before I said anything?), you will still have progressives like Snyder running where they feel they will have the best chance of getting elected.

Once in a while, they may be honest and slap a "-d" after their name. If they're really gutsy, possibly a "-g" or even a "-s".

But the dangerous ones aren't running to score brownie points in their little circle of political friends. Die-hard progressives want power and will resort to pretty much anything, especially lying, to grab it.