Sunday, November 05, 2006

Think Before You Vote (Updated)

Some of you Democrats out there might actually be thinking of doing the unthinkable: voting for a Republican, who seems like a good candidate. But before you make such a mistake, please stop and think and consider the big picture.

While that Republican might well be likable and even a good person, and might agree with you on a particular issue that you strongly believe in, a vote for a Republican in this particular election is a vote against everything that made you a Democrat in the first place.

Make no mistake, this is an election of historic importance. The Republican Party has assumed one party rule over our nation. They have taken over the Executive Branch, both houses of Congress, the Federal Court System, the majority of Governorships and control a majority of state legislatures. Perhaps, if they had chosen to govern wisely, honestly and justly, this would be an acceptable state of affairs. However, they have done the opposite.

Before you vote remember Republican, remember the following and don't forget that your vote will be seen as support for these policies:

Nationally:

Invading Iraq
Tax cuts for the rich, while cutting social programs for the poor and middle class
Privatizing Social Security
Prescription Drug Plans for Big Pharma instead of working Americans
Legalized Torture and withdrawal from the Geneva Conventions
The Patriot Act
No increase in the Minimum Wage
No Federal Support for Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Rolling Back Gay Rights

State-wide

A 72 percent rise in electric rates
A Governor who is against multiculturalism
skyrocketing college tuition costs
well-publicized cleansings of state agencies (where party affiliation was considered - politics to the detriment of public services and peoples' careers)

Locally

A return to the era of tax cuts funded by cuts in education, police and fire protection and the failure to maintain our infrastructure.

Anyone want to add to this list? Please do in the comments section.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

So the most important thing in the election is the Democrat label on the candidate? I am voting for mostly Democrats but some Republicans have earned my vote. Ehrlich and Merdon are two examples.

Lest we forget, Ehrlich fixed the budget mess and tried to pass slots, despite the stonewalling of his initiatives by the state legislature (which is, BTW, controlled by Democrats).

Divided government is good.

Republican presidents need the balance of Democrat-controlled Senate and House.

Democratic state legislators need the balance of a Republican governor.

Didn't we learn anything from Glendening?

Anonymous said...

Sorry steve, but I will vote for Democrats for every office across the board except County Executive.

I normally vote Democratic anyway, but Chris Merdon has earned my vote this year and I really believe Ken Ulman is not at all qualified to be County Executive. We should have a majority on the Council anyway, so we will be able to prevent Merdon from being able to do too much damage.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I should also add that my decisaion to vote for Merdon also had to do with Ken Ulman's behind the scenes attempt to smear my good friend Barbara Russell at CA by bringing up ethics complaints thorugh Feldmark's campaign treasurer.

Anonymous said...

I think you are right. The GOP time and time again has shown that they are one way election year and drastically different the other three.

Ehrlich talks about the Democratically controlled legislature and why he can't get anything done for three years. Election year he's a bi-partisan leader who takes credit for everything great that has happened in MD.

Steele is the GOP darling for three years then, in an election year an independent who will go toe-to-toe with Bush..

Merdon cuts libraries, schools, votes against green laws, public health laws and for almost everything that comes before the zoning board for three years. Election year he is the slow growth, green, bipartisan leader, who will fund every great idea. If he is bi-partisan, how has he gotten along with his Democratic colleagues on the council? Other than Rakes—poorly. How will he get along with a Democratic council as executive? We will have three if not three and a half seats.

You Democrats who vote Republican then complain for three years are too easily swayed by a media that openly endorses a Republican government. Do you really believe Republicans will even take your calls in off-election years? Ask the Democrats who have Kittleman, Miller, Bartlett, etc. as representatives.

There was a time when we were strong and our primaries were how we picked our candidates. Because we are so weak and so disorganized we have toss-ups as primaries and then have this discussion.

Do you think the Republicans are having this discussion—even for their weakest candidates like Feldwick, D’Asto, Ellrich, White, Gaffney, etc. They are backing their people no matter what from announcement through election day because they understand that winning is about numbers.

Look at the last two election cycles when we had this debate while the Republicans rallied their base. We lost EVERYTHING—Legislature, Presidency, even the Judiciary.

Wake up and start work with our leaders and stop working against your own party or just switch parties.

Anonymous said...

For the statewide list add:
- skyrocketing college tuition costs
- well-publicized cleansings of state agencies (where party affiliation was considered - politics to the detriment of public services and peoples' careers)
- trying to pass slots, a regressive tax that puts the tax burden on those that can least afford it
- running a 2006 campaign that doesn't provide a plan for the future (who would vote for a candidate that is purposefully not saying what they'll do?).

We deserve no less than to know a candidate's past, to see a candidate has acted consistently and competently in the public interest, and to be told what they plan to do with the authority, opportunity, and trust we'll bestow upon them.

Anonymous said...

Thinking before you vote would mean actually evaluating each candidate independently and differentiating, rather than just voting for all members of a political party. It's a shame that partisanship is so high nowadays.

Anonymous said...

This is the only year on record in my lifetime when voting the party is a patriotic and sensible thing to do.

I would add to the list things items such as Abramoff, Corporate welfare at insane levels, Oil prices beyond belief, Foley, Katrina, Iraq, and now Iran and N. Korea. I'd add as many Haggarts as exist, because, as a 'values voter' I painfully understand that this party has abused power to historic levels, the anti-value. This current republican party would drain the life out of this nation for a week's worth of power.

If you think it hasn't gone local with some folks, you're not close enough to the truth.

Anonymous said...

I am a Democrat. I disagree often with Mr. Kittleman. He always returns my calls and takes time to fully listen to my arguments. Be fair.

Mr. Merdon was considered equal in terms of his "greenness" by the Sierra Club. Both candidates received good comments. Mr. Ulman ultimately won the endorsement because he promised to create a separate Department of the Environment and Mr. Merdon believed it should be at the Agency-not department level. There is very little difference on environmental issues between the two. On this issue, a knee-jerk vote for a democrat gets you nothing more in terms of environmental protection.

Mr. Ulman has a deserved reputation for bad temper. No one refutes this. If they support him they'll make excuses for this by saying he is young, he'll grow out of it, he's improved. etc. He needs to be steady right now- there is no more time to grow out of it. I don't think he's ready. He ran too soon, he should have waited four more years. He could have provided steady, experienced help to the Council while working on the maturity thing. I was disappointed in that decision.

The only argument for closing your eyes to obvious weaknesses and voting only along party lines in this local election is that local elections are often a breeding ground for state and federal politicians. Party politics mean little at the local level, but much at the state and federal level.

That said, I can not make myself pull the lever for Ulman, however. As much as I've tried to convince myself to do it, I know he is not ready for the job and that our county needs a strong leader who can work with everyone. In this race, in this election that person is Chris Merdon.

And nearly every Democrat I know- who has researched this race on the issues and on the skills and abilities of the candidates, has reached the same decision.

See, the bad thing about Democrats not always voting the party line, is sometimes the good thing. Some of us actually think.