[Hoot Gibson]

I honestly wonder, after reading this thread, how many BGR users just push the button at the top of the voting machine that says Democrat, Republican, etc...

This is really sad. I understand in real life (I was a campaign manager for a current Ky House member) that you talk as little about issues and as much about fluff as possible. But on a message board, why not discuss the candidates?

It was sad because when I was working with one candidate helping him to fluff, the other candidate was a young, smart, handsome, well-experienced in Frankfort candidate. He made the big mistake of actually talking about issues at a debate and it burnt him. Isn't America sad? I know that I was heart-broken after the election, because I actually wanted the other candidate to win after hearing from him, but I knew that he would be gobbled up in Frankfort by party-ism, and favors.

How about this. Could someone PLEASE post some type of platform about the candidates, even if it means doing this:

Rand Paul- hates Obama and is a Republican
Jack Conway- loves Obama and is a Democrat

Sadly, that would be more than what is being put on here now.

I mean lets try to inform the potential voters.

If you don't like what is being posted here, LWC, why don't you post here more frequently? I would love to see stronger participation in this forum.

I would like to address the portion of your post that I have highlighted in bold type. I too used to have a problem with straight ticket voters who, I assumed, did not really care about the issues or take time to learn candidates' positions on the issues. I was wrong - at least I was wrong in a good many cases. Some people do simply cast straight party ballots out of willful ignorance or laziness. Others, myself included, believe that we have valid reasons for doing so and we also believe that we are adequately informed about the issues.

After years of following national political issues and candidates I have reached the conclusion that in the case of national candidates, nothing is more important than the ® or the (D) beside of their name. The reason is simple. Votes for (D)s will help ensure that Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid (or some equally unappealing alternatives) will be setting the nation's legislative agenda for the next two years. That legislative agenda will result in bills that are radically different than the ones on which I want my Congressmen and Senators voting. I want people representing me in Congress who will have an opportunity to vote in favor of legislation that I support. That will rarely happen with liberal Democrats in charge of Congress.

Members of the minority party in the US House of Representatives and the US Senate are not powerless, but the most important vote that they will cast by far will be to elect the Speaker of the House or Majority Leader of the Senate. By being a member of the minority in either house of Congress, a representative or senator has very few opportunities to shape legislation that is important to him or her.

Even if a Democratic candidate says that if elected, he will vote exactly as I would vote and even if he is telling the truth, in reality, he will not have an opportunity to vote in favor of legislation that I would support. So why should the Democratic candidate's positions really matter to me?

Granted, if the majority party only controls Congress by a narrow margin, moderates in the minority party will be able to win some compromises in legislation that the majority members propose, but conservatives and liberals are not going to be pleased with such compromises. For us, gaining large legislative majorities are a must because compromise frequently means throwing core principles to the wind.

As it relates to this particular Senate campaign, it really makes no difference to me what Jack Conway's positions on any issues are. If he and Harry Reid are both elected, then Conway will support Reid and he will support most, if not all, of Obama's agenda.

At the state or local levels, I have no problem voting for the "best man" or the "best woman" running for an office, regardless of their political affiliation. In the past, I have also cast protest votes against Hal Rogers and George H. W. Bush (I voted for Perot the first time) but that was before I finally saw the error of my ways.

As long as the political agendas of the two major national parties are as radically different as they are today, I will always vote for the most conservative Republican running for national office. If a Democrat is running unopposed for a national office, then I will vote for a candidate running on ticket of the the Libertarian or Constitution Party or any other third party candidate. I will not grant approval of the national Democratic Party by voting for one of its candidates.

True conservatives, given today's political realities should never vote for Democrats in a national election, nor should true liberals ever vote for Republicans. With moderates, it really does not matter. They tend to be less well informed on issues and candidates that most appeal to them tend to be political opportunists like John McCain and his ilk. I happen to think that the kind of "splitting the baby" solutions crafted by moderates is often worse than the more extreme alternatives on either side.

As for a posting a platform for each candidate, I like the ones that you posted. :biggrin:

They are concise and they cover the most important positions of the candidates. This election is a national referendum on Obama and his thieving accomplices in Congress. The (D) and the ® beside Paul's and Conway's names is all that people need to understand before making an informed decision and casting their ballots.