tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6911506.post114658652180037858..comments2023-11-05T04:29:40.867-08:00Comments on Choosing Hope: Turning Congress & the New Silent MajorityWalkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07043584417557166784noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6911506.post-1146853371398408412006-05-05T11:22:00.000-07:002006-05-05T11:22:00.000-07:00Scottage,My bias for CONGRESSIONAL voting has abso...Scottage,<BR/><BR/>My bias for CONGRESSIONAL voting has absolutely nothing to do with blind partisanship, but with a sober understanding of the way our government works. I too have crossed party lines, and will continue to do so for many races, such as statewide officeholders in my state of Washington. But one member of the House of Representatives is far less significant than which party has the majority there. Far too few Congressional Districts are swing districts, so those that are become very significant for the national picture.<BR/><BR/>Allow me to explain with a specific example. In 2004 my belief was that Tom DeLay was a extraordinarily corrupt politician with far too much influence nationally, but I don’t live in DeLay’s district. Say I live in a swing district and the Republican is some reasonable fellow like Leach of Iowa, and the Democrat is a demagogic mouthpiece who shows little evidence of independent thought or compassion. I will likely have a much higher opinion personally of the Republican, and it will rankle me to vote for the less honorable candidate, but I would do it because my district just might be the one which changes party control of the whole body. If one vote in one district caused the House to switch parties that changes the Speaker of the House, the Majority Leader (DeLay), and the Chairmanships of every committee, not to mention who controls the rules et cetera, and so on. I might be sorry that one of the 435 Congresspeople is less honorable than would otherwise be the case, but removing one-party control of our government is far more significant.<BR/><BR/>I would be more likely to vote for a Republican for President than for Congress, but would remain concerned that as a Republican they would be obliged to fill all the appointed positions with Republicans and conservatives. In 2002-3 I was actually hoping that McCain and Feingold might team up and run together as a bipartisan ticket independently. It would be refreshing to get out of the winner takes all yoyoing that shakes up the top level of all government departments every time there is a change at the top. Right now we badly need some yoyoing back in the Democratic direction.Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07043584417557166784noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6911506.post-1146851433390677842006-05-05T10:50:00.000-07:002006-05-05T10:50:00.000-07:00Yes, I think in general a move towards the democra...Yes, I think in general a move towards the democrats in congress would be a step in the right direction. But I don't feel that it's essential to vote for every democrat just because they are democrats. I actually believe the key lies in voting for people who think, and who actually care for the wants and needs of ordinary citizens. Yes, this is considered a democractic trait, but there are republicans in that boat too. <BR/><BR/>I know this is unpopular, but if Condi Rice were to run for office, I would vote for her, because I have consistently seen her as thinking abotu the public good, although at many times she's been forced to speak the party line. Similarly, I would vote for Guilliani if he ran for congress. He always stuck up for people, values, integrity. He was fantastic in a crisis, and would be beneficial to this government, imho.<BR/><BR/>I think you're heading the right direction with this, but I think there are good politicians and bad, and that they aren't necessarily divided along party lines.Scottagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13492264428022458084noreply@blogger.com