How much does party affiliation matter?
Obviously the latest and greatest is from the O’Donnell v. Bearded Marxist race, but I wanted to look at some other stuff regarding party affiliation and political ideology. I’ve made no bones about my support of Democrat Jim Marshall in Georgia, and I know nothing whatsoever about his GOP opponent in Georgia, but i would still support Jim no matter who it is.
Let me ask this, would you rather have a Democrat who is conservative, or a Republican who is moderate/liberal?
Take for instance Marshall’s latest hit on his opponent:
Marshall: “I’m Jim Marshall, and I approved this message.”
Male voiceover: “Times are hard. And illegal immigrants are putting more of a burden on taxpayers by using public services like hospitals and schools.
“But Austin Scott voted against penalizing illegal immigrants who try to send money out of the country. Austin Scott said he had ‘a moral problem’ making illegal immigrants pay.
“Mr. Scott, what about the moral problem of illegal immigrants breaking the law?”
For the life of me I can’t really figure out what makes Jim a Democrat, except his friendship with former Senator Zell Miller. The only vote that ever pisses me off that Jim makes is for Pelosi. And granted, that is an important one.
So here is my question, assume that you lived in that district. Further assume that both of the candidates is a virtual carbon copy. The only difference is party affiliation. Would you rather have a Dem, or a GOP? See, I would rather have a Dem. And here’s why….
Many of the pieces of legislation that are acted upon first get discussed in the Dem caucus meetings. Obviously if a substantial number of the majority doesn’t approve of something, it goes nowhere. Would you rather have a guy that is in there fighting against some asinine thing, or a guy who can just cast a vote against it when it gets to the floor.
There’s a wide spread story that during the caucus meetings on Iraq that one time Jim and Murtha had to be physically seperated. Now, I don’t know if that is true, I never asked the Congressman, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all. The last 3 times I have been in Jim’s office he had a stack of emails printed out on his desk that he wanted to read to me. They were from Dem’s in his district blasting the shit out of him for backing the surge and what we were doing in Iraq. And let me tell you, they were just venomous. So, it can’t be easy for Jim to be in the party and take that abuse. Frankly, I am somewhat amazed he hasn’t faced a more serious challenge from the left.
Anyway, subject for discussion is my earlier posed question, would you rather be represented by a Conservative (pro-military, anti-illegal immigration, pro-gun) Democrat, or a Sue Collins type Republican. Put another way, how important to you is party affiliation?
BTW- How hard core is Jim on Immigration, you be the judge:
Category: Politics
Well, it depends. If the Dems are in power, then there is a benefit to being represented by a conservative Dem. However, hopefully (pray pray pray), in January, that will no longer be the case. Then it comes down to which candidate I believe is less likely to sell me out for political gain.
(Susan: is your email not working, or are you boycotting all things TSO?)
Marshall is an old school Democrat, unlike most of today’s Democrat politicians. Most are Socialists or Communists, but couldn’t get elected if they ran under those labels.
Allow me to begin by saying that his signature looks identical to Jim Henson’s. Yes, muppet Jim Henson.
Second, I can’t say that party affiliation should be definitive of a politician a capite ad calcem.
I make no bones about being to the right of Attila politically, yet my Great-grandfather was a democratic Senator from South Carolina. Granted, Democrats of yore were leaps and bounds more conservative than even Republicans today. Still, my uncle back home who remains in politics chooses to run as a Democrat, and he’s far more conservative than the vast majority of Republicans in office.
I would have to say that common sense and use of logic trumps party affiliation. Also, if there’s a chance to have a sensible Democrat talk sense into fence-sitting, more liberal Democrats, I’m all for his holding office.
The only thing about it is that if voting for him keeps the Dems in power then they get to set the agenda. He can be punished for his votes by not allowing any of his legislation on the floor. That being said, if Republicans are in power and set the agenda then I would rather see Marshall in there. Of course, I would have voted for a Zell Miller too…
OT, I will go even a step further, and say something that virtually everyone will hate me for. I hope the GOP doesn’t take back either the House or the Senate. I don’t trust the GOP worth a shit. They are almost as bad on the spending as the Dems are. I hope it is 218 Dem to 217 GOP. I hope it is 51 Dems and 49 GOP. Because I don’t think the GOP has done anything when they were in the majority that was worth a shit. I’d rather be in the moniority, and let some of the sane dems (Marshall, Taylor in MS, Edwards in TX) etc switch on votes than to have the GOP ramming shit through that sends pork to their districts.
The Senate is even worse. Do any of you really trust Mitch McConnell on anything?
Pelosi and Reid are terrible, I give you that, but I don’t look forward to defending Boehner and McConnell when it is business as usual because the GOP can’t grow up and act like Republicans when they are in power.
Flame on….
The only problem with voting for Democrats is Pelosi, Rangel, Conyers, Franks, Waters, Miller, the pipsqueak from Cinci, et al. Voting for a demorat put these clowns in power. The liberals out number the conservatives in the party. They control the agenda.
. I don’t trust the GOP worth a shit. They are almost as bad on the spending as the Dems are
You said it yourself….almost as bad…so you’d keep the worse of the lot in there?
Because I don’t think the GOP has done anything when they were in the majority that was worth a shit. I’d rather be in the moniority, and let some of the sane dems…switch votes
Nothing? Granted they spent the 1st 6 years of the Bush Presidency fattening up their districts but it pales when compared to what the Dems have done in 2!! I thought they got off to a great start with the Contract for America in ’94. No doubt they fell into the same old beltway trap and they lost their ass for it, I hope they learned something from the tea party but in the end after 5,6,7 years they my go back to the old beltway ways unless we can get some kind of balanced budget amendment passed. BTW, are there more than a handful of sane Dems?
I don’t entirely disagree with you but my assesment would certainly be less harsh than “they’re not worth a shit” I think they’ll get off to a good start…we’ll see if the tea party can keep them in line or more likely, how long…
TSO, I would rather have a slight GOP majority, but were they still need Democrats like Marshall to get legislation passed. Seems like the majority of elected Democrats are more out of touch with American values than most elected Republicans.
addendum to my #8
almost as bad as spending….
I hate sounding like the old “choose the lesser of 2 evils” cliche. We have to keep everyones feet to the fire on spending regardless, and if they can’t keep their hands out of the til, cut ’em off!
In the House particularly, it is a numbers game. So what if Marshall’s personal platform is conservative? His votes for the the Democrat leadership ensures left wing policy outcomes. Even if he votes contrary to that leadership, he allows them to set the terms of each vote.
I figured Stupak’s example from the health care debate would’ve put this issue to rest.
TSO,
Here’s how I see it.
If the GOP can gain a majority in one or both houses of Congress, we have the ability to set the agenda, and we can temper the influence of those same RINOS by having a number of Tea-Party Conservatives in the mix. Seeing how there are quite a few winning in the primaries, and leading in the polls, that bodes well for keeping the RINOS in check.
I could, in almost any other situation, vote for Jim Marshall. However, the GOP needs to gain control in order to have the power of the gavel and the chairs of the committees. As long as the Dems are in charge, we will be in danger of the radical left and all the insane damage they do.
Vote for the Tea Party candidate, because the one thing that will guarantee you is that he/she will adhere to the Constitution, and to the ideal of limited government in all phases of our lives.
I’d rather be in the minority, and let some of the sane dems…switch on votes than to have the GOP ramming shit through…
I’ve grown pretty weary of this ‘pox on both their houses’ style of analysis. Your preference doesn’t just prevent the GOP from going stupid, it also allows the Democrats to go full retard, precisely due to the early critical support of the few ‘sane dems’ in the caucus. You’d be just as responsible for the excesses of another Pelosi/Reid congress as a Democrat who enthusiastically voted for their Democratic congressional candidate.
The Marshall/Scott is a good example of the conundrum a lot of voters are in this year. When it comes down to it you have to disregard the rhetoric and campaign commercials and look at the record. Marshall has a solid track record.
I owe neither party blind allegiance. I have voted Democrat, Republican and third party. Georgia has had some good Dems like Zell Miller and Sam Nunn, although in the last year Mr Nunn has made some statements that made me question his sanity before slipping back into the background. When I was serving Nunn served on one of the muckity muck armed services committees and he supported us every step of the way.
The danger in this years election cycle is all of the unknowns and blatant lies. I tune out the garbage on tv and radio but I fear I am the rarity. The governors race in Georgia is such a mess right now that most of the state is wishing for a do over in the primary, but it is the result of voting for the person with name recognition instead of paying attention to their actions. And that goes for both parties.
This very thing led to the current holder of the office of president. Nobody paid attention to his record rather they voted like it was an American Idol contest. He was photogenic, gave good speeches and gosh darn made us feel good.
For the record Marshall should win and I would hope that more Georgians will do like I do and ask for an Independent ballot in the general election which allows you to vote for the entire slate of candidates. In our primaries you have to vote party ballot but not in the general.
AW1
The big problem is time. The GOP always seems to stray after a period of time and we’ll need tea partiers to keep them in line.
TSO: Your central thesis seems un-flawed. Party affiliation is (or should be) a trivial matter. I believe the problem is systemic, however.
A reminder of Lord Acton’s dictum:
“I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it. “
Oh, and I am a registered independent myself.
JAG I live in GA as well. In the primary, you declare your party or lack there of, but in the general, there is only one ballot.
(TSO – not boycotting you for inviting AS but not me :-), changed jobs. Just sent you an email)
Voting for the Tea Party candidate in South Tejas means a vote for Ron Paul.
And I’m not that desperate.
The Dems and repubs are 2 sides of the same coin. The only thing that they care about, for the most part, is staying in their position and maybe getting that shoice committee spot. To do that, they have to paly along to get along and that means they vote down the party line most of the time. If voting for Marshall means that Pelosi gets to keep her speakership, then I wouldn’t vote for him, it that were the sole metric that I used to vote. I’m weird, though, I vote on principals, not party. I’m a conservative and that’s how I vote. I wouldn’t vote for Christie for President for the same reason I didn’t support Guliani, they have this aversion to the 2nd Amendment, which is a biggie in my view.
OT: “The Dems and repubs are 2 sides of the same coin.”
I disagree with that, but certainly not in favor of either side. Rather, I see it as the Dems largely playing (or being direct to play) to remake the country to the left’s liking while the Reps are just playing politics for politics’ sake. The former is beholden to the left, the latter is politically mercenary with a tendency towards the power of leftist statism, and nobody represents the right. The political spectrum in DC is basically “left” to “somewhat less left”, which explains most of the problems we have with an out-of-control federal government and insane spending no matter who is in power.
I’m not sure if it’s just a vibe in the righter side of the blogosphere today or what, but another site prompted a much longer post on this topic (my name’s got the link, if you’re interested). The short version is this: What we need is for conservatives to take over the Republican Party much as the left owns the Democrats, so the field is right vs left instead of left vs left. Of course, it’s a lot easier to get politicians to go your way when your way will get them ever more power than when you want to take that power away. Still, it needs to happen. The Tea Parties just aren’t enough. We need a party that is committed to conservative principles, whether it be through true convictions or just fear of losing their jobs.
OT: “The Dems and repubs are 2 sides of the same coin.”
I disagree with that, but certainly not in favor of either side. Rather, I see it as the Dems largely playing (or being direct to play) to remake the country to the left’s liking while the Reps are just playing politics for politics’ sake. The former is beholden to the left, the latter is politically mercenary with a tendency towards the power of leftist statism, and nobody represents the right. The political spectrum in DC is basically “left” to “somewhat less left”, which explains most of the problems we have with an out-of-control federal government and insane spending no matter who is in power.
I’m not sure if it’s just a vibe in the righter side of the blogosphere today or what, but another site prompted a much longer post on this topic (here, if you’re interested). The short version is this: What we need is for conservatives to take over the Republican Party much as the left owns the Democrats, so the field is right vs left instead of left vs left. Of course, it’s a lot easier to get politicians to go your way when your way will get them ever more power than when you want to take that power away. Still, it needs to happen. The Tea Parties just aren’t enough. We need a party that is committed to conservative principles, whether it be through true convictions or just fear of losing their jobs.
“Anyway, subject for discussion is my earlier posed question, would you rather be represented by a Conservative (pro-military, anti-illegal immigration, pro-gun) Democrat, or a Sue Collins type Republican. Put another way, how important to you is party affiliation?” ========== It all depends on whether or not that “conservative Democrat” has a backbone, principles and the political courage to use both. It does no good to have “Blue Dog Democrats” who *claim* to be “conservative” and then end up voting with the radical socialist/Marxist Democrat Party leadership on key legislation. We saw the so-called “Blue Dogs” act neutered when it came to Obamacare. My key issues are Amnesty, Cap-n-Tax/global warming, fiscal conservatism and active support of the military (as opposed to how the majority of Democrats treat military members as either lunatics or victims and use legislation regarding the military as a political football). So if by some miracle there happens to be a Democrat whose ideology is aligned that way, I’d vote for them over a RINO. HOWEVER… right now, after watching the Democrats destroy the economy for the last 3 years, undermine Bush and the GOP when they had the economy humming from 2003-2007 and undermine both war efforts every step of the way, I want the Democrats out of power. PERIOD. So the only way I’d vote for a Democrat, even a conservative one, would be if that Democrat would use their spine and stand up for their principles and tell the lunatic Marxist leadership of the Democrat Party to pound sand on any radical liberal legislation. In 2006 and 2008, plenty of so-called “Blue Dogs” were elected to the House and Senate on the campaign promise that they were “conservative”. And then they ended up voting with Pelosi and Reid on everything. So no Democrat has ANY credibility anymore. So, I guess after all that rambling, I’d have to say that if it were a choice between a RINO and a Democrat, I’d vote for neither. The RINO would end up hurting the GOP brand and the Democrat would just end up voting for radical Democrat Party… Read more »