Attention all politically connected readers!

9 thoughts on “Attention all politically connected readers!”

1. I completely agree with you!! I will add that I also don’t want to vote for any candidate who spends 90-100% of his or her print and TV ads slinging mud at their opponent. I can hardly wait until election day is over!!!

2. Seriously. Two things I get tired of: pre-recorded messages when I pick up the phone, and ads that never tell you why you should vote for a candidate, but only why you shouldn’t for his opponent.

3. Hey… I work for one of those candidates and volunteer for several others. 🙂 Phone calls–mostly personal ones (as opposed to pre-recorded) are one of the top ways to get out the vote. Even though there are a few people who are annoyed by them, research shows they do get people out to the polls–especially when those calls come from people that live in the district. Door to door visits and targeted mail pieces round out the top three ways to get votes.

   FYI: politicians are not supposed to have access to the no call lists for personal use. None of the candidates I’m working with have ever (nor have any of their staffers or volunteers) used a no-call list. There are always people who break rules… but in my circle (which is limited) this is not common. I don’t know anyone who’s done it and none of my candidates do either. Most just buy their lists from a vendor and it comes from public records: who has voted in specific elections. The vendor then matches those names with publicly available phone numbers. Since my own number is unlisted, I only get those calls from the couple of specific candidates I chose to give my phone number to.

   I try really hard to vote based on the candidate and the issues that are most important to me (for instance: a candidates position on the abortion issue). That’s why I’ve stepped outside my party on several occasions to vote for someone.

   So, for what it’s worth, and I imagine it is very little… that’s the other side of the story. Getting out the vote is critical this year. And both parties will tell you that…

4. Studies, schmudies. This is the second election that we’ve been badgered, and it further disenfranchises us. And I’m not talking about a usual disinterested voter. I’ve gone to the polls on run-offs even. But I’m done with this nonsense.

   But the Republican party has jumped the shark anyway. Sorry to say that, Laurie. But it has. I think there are many who will be in for a total shock.

5. I’m a registered Independent now. I’ve about had my fill of both parties. Tom Coburn’s book, Breach of Trust, destroyed the last bit of whatever few illusions I might have had left after taking Dr. Jones’s Communication in Politics class. They can all rot, as far as I as a private person am concerned.

   But that presents a serious dilemma for me as a citizen. I do vote as often as possible, and it scares me to death that more and more often, I’m voting for the best of bad choices to make decisions for my country. What’s a voter to do? Right now, we’re gearing up for an election in which the strongest argument for any of the candidates is “Any one is better than the guy who’s in the office now.” Doesn’t give me much to choose from. :-/

6. I’m disappointed & disenchanted with how the Republican House has led too… just not enough to disengage from the process. Can’t change the process for now, so yes, sometimes I do end up voting for the lesser of two evils. And sometimes I get an opportunity to vote for someone who really does stand on principle. That excites me–especially when I watch them remain resolved. I think that kind of politician is rare though.

   We all have to act in accord with our own conscience. That’s just where I am…

7. I guess I don’t see refusing to be singly committed to the GOP or refusing to vote for any candidate that badgers me with the telephone as disengaging from politics. The scuttlebutt (newspaper editorials and such) around here is that the phone stuff hurts voter turnout too. Hmmm. . . .

8. I’m not singly committed to the GOP either… matter of fact I voted for a dem. in the off year election last year locally (not my first vote cast for a dem.). On some issues I’m “conservative” (abortion, overall fiscal issues) on others I’m “liberal” (some social programs, education spending), on others more “moderate” (the war in Iraq–don’t think we should have gone there, but now that we are we can screw it up by leaving them in a mess and I’m not sure we’re helping them be independent in the best way). Sometimes I vote Republican bc of abortion issues, but for certain offices, the office holder cannot impact abortion, so I may not consider their view on abortion before I vote for them (like school board, sheriff, county commissioner, city council, etc.). For state legislature and federal offices abortion is more of a top level issue for me.

   I personally view refusing to vote for someone that annoys you with phone calls instead of just asking them to take you off their list (or ignoring the call) as disengaging from issues that are more important. If you don’t want them to call you, let them know. I suppose it depends on who gets the benefit of the non-vote. In a couple of races here that approach wouldn’t matter. But in a few, the beneficiary of the non-vote is repugnant to me.

   I don’t believe a few editorials or a few complaints. I’ve seen the evidence with my own eyes in too many races over the last ten years. My attitude: when ppl complain, take them off the list. No big deal. (Where is that shrugging shoulders icon???)

   BTW, I think being annoyed with phone calls is hardly disenfranchisement. Refusing to vote is your own choice, not deprivation… Perhaps you were speaking a tongue in cheek though 🙂

9. I understand Camille’s frustration with phone calls, but they don’t bother me since I have a cell phone. However, the GOP seems to be making up for thay by keeping my inbox well-stocked with spam. However, while I may not contribute to such candidates, I agree with Laurie that some issues–especially abortion–are too important to let annoying calls get in my way. I am far more willing to entertain not voting out of protest in local or state elections because state and local elections (unfortunately) cannot impact such issues (for this reason I am also more open to voting democrat in local races).

   I share Monica’s disgust with the current political scene, but I don’t think her dilemma is new. Politics has always, always been about voting for the lesser of two evils. That is the reality of life in a fallen world. The chance to vote for someone truly good might come once or twice in a lifetime (think Reagan or Lincoln).

   I think the GOP is going to get killed in this election and I think they deserve it. My conservative friends here at ND–both the libertarian economic ones and the more religious ones–are livid at the party for the corruption, incompetence, pride, cowardice, hypocrisy, and failure to get anything done. The GOP leadership has become the kind of people they were voted to oust, and they are so out of touch they have no idea how man rank and file conservatives (as opposed to republicans) are. Coburn is right on how the GOP has betrayed the trust of many people.

   But I cannot stress enough that the failure is one of men, not (I submit) of ideas. I am still just as committed to limited government and judicial restraint as ever (although with less religious fervor) but I am much less optimistic about the men carrying it out. I have not read Coburn, but I suspect he feels the same way. He is no less opposed to partial birth abortion or lower taxes because of the idiocy within his party. If anything, the corruption suggests that if power corrupts, limiting power is the only way to lower corruption.

   I really think the biggest lesson of this political flop, especially so soon after the optimism and trimumph of 2004, is the danger of looking to human beings, in any arena, as all-wish and capable of brining in utopia. Scripture has some choice words for those who trust in man.

   I cannot resist commenting on one of Camille’s links. The detainee bill is perfectly rational and perfecetly consistent with how spies, sabatours, and terrorists have been treated in war from time immemorial. An the appeal to international law is absurd. It isn’t law, and even if it were, no ones else follows it either.

Comments are closed.