[LWC]

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.

I respect your opinion and I agree, I have no problem with well-informed voters that decide that every candidate of one party is their favorite. Often times, that is what happens, people align themselves with a party's agenda and that is why we have parties, lol.

My biggest problem were the "yellow-dog" voters. As in if a big yellow dog was running against a well-respectable candidate, if the yellow dog was running for their party, they have their vote.

I do agree, Washington has gotten very sickening. It is almost impossible to reach across party lines anymore. James Madison warned us about political parties, and I guess he was right, lol. I also feel as if a person HAS to pick their poison between "stingy, money-****ry, war-mongering" EXTREME Republicans or "Robin-hooded, baby-killing, hippie-like" EXTREME Deomocrats. Nobody is willing to be an Henry Clay and try to bring both sides together, (even though he had his faults, you know what I am trying to say )

If the Tea-Party had candidates that were not so crazy and just totally ridiculous, I would be able to latch on. I like the idea of shaking up Washington. It is too hard for a good man/woman to be moral, by any stretch of the imagination. I honestly believe that MANY congress men and women would NEVER vote if they were not required. That way they would be able to avoid the campaign bullets.

I don't believe that a Democrat can appeal to Republican or vice-versa in Washington anymore. If you notice that almost every major bill that has been passed in the last 10 years has been either a democrat-favored bill or a republican favored bill. Nothing major that has been passed has been liked by both sides. Many times a bill can be drafted at 30-35 pages, but by the time all the crap has been added to it it is a 500-1000 page piece of garbage that congress-people don't even read!

I know that I have totally hi-jacked this thread and I apologize. It doesn't even matter because unless I drive from Jamestown to Brodhead, I wont be able to vote. (I made a vow to never be registered in the same county that I pastor in, to avoid HUGE church fights, but that is another story, :lmao: )

Continue on