| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 372.1 | | PROXY::SCHMIDT | Thinking globally, acting locally! | Tue Sep 11 1990 20:48 | 5 |
| Sharon:
Run.
Atlant
|
| 372.2 | | COBWEB::SWALKER | lean, green, and at the screen | Wed Sep 12 1990 00:10 | 18 |
|
Well, that's the obvious answer, but I can't run for everything
at once, can I?
What I'm more interested in hearing about is the 'strategies' of
other "litmus test voters": how do you go about "cutting your
losses" in the voting booth when faced with a situation like this
(what your particular litmus test is doesn't matter), and, as more
of a long term solution, how does one go about scaring up people
who are willing to run for these positions in the first place?
I mean, this is the PRIMARY. This is the *place* for real
duplicity of the ideas. Instead, there seems to be a surprising
allegiance to the national "party line". It's at this level that
things need to change if we're ever going to see change in the sort
of candidates that make it to the general election.
Sharon
|
| 372.3 | | SA1794::CHARBONND | Follow *that*, Killer }:^) | Wed Sep 12 1990 07:13 | 6 |
| re .2 Sorry, Sharon, you can't change it from the top down.
The upper levels will change when they see their lower-level
clones getting *beaten*. As long as the formula works, it
won't be changed. Get some alternatives at the state and
even local levels and make sure they win. Then the old boys
upstairs might wake up and smell the concrete :-)
|
| 372.4 | | PROXY::SCHMIDT | Thinking globally, acting locally! | Wed Sep 12 1990 10:46 | 60 |
| Here's another suggestion:
Get non-voters to vote. Based on the results of yesterday's NH
primary election, it's obvious that some combination of the
following statements is true:
o Feminisim/Pro-Choice/Social Progressivism doesn't exist in NH
o Feminists/Pro-Choicers/Social Progressives don't vote in NH
Please, don't anyone bother to flame me, the vote speaks for itself.
o Smith, the arch-conservative won the Republican Senate
nomination in a landslide.
o (Durkin, the least PC of the three candidates won on the
Democratic side, but I'll chalk that up to people feeling
like he had the best sliver of hope of beating Smith in
the general election.)
o Brady the lunatic nearly won the Republican nomination for
the seat in the 1st Congressional District. There'll be a
recount -- he may yet win.
o (Keefe won the Democratic nod -- he's PC but I'd bet on
snowballs surviving Hell sooner than I'd bet on Keefe
surviving the general election.)
o Chuck Douglas ran unopposed for the Republican nomination
for the 2nd Congressional District. He'll win handily in
November.
o Judd Gregg ran essentially unopposed on the Republican side.
We all know where he casts his one-vote-�ber-alles on the
issue of Choice.
o On the Democratic side, Grandmaison won, but Preston the
Pro-Lifer made a very respectable showing.
I'm tired of hearing talk about Feminist and Pro-choice issues --
let's see some votes instead. The Pro-Lifers *OBVIOUSLY AND
EXPLICITLY* state their intent to vote "single-issue"� but the
Feminists, Pro-Choicers, and general social Progressives carefully
weigh every issue, trying to balance them carefully against their
own economic concerns...
BULLS**T!
Atlant
� A Massachusetts group reportedly has 75K+ voters coming to the Mass
Primary voting for Pierce solely on the basis of his stand against
Choice. A leader in the group was reported as saying something like
"We'd vote for Micky Mouse if he was Pro-Life!".
|
| 372.5 | Do you have to be one or the other | HYSTER::DELISLE | | Wed Sep 12 1990 11:14 | 20 |
| I'm a NH resident, consider myself a feminist, and in all honesty
cannot simply consider abortion as the "litmus test" of ANY candidate.
There are other equally important things. I also am neither Pro-life
nor Pro-choice, as they are conventionally defined. Those two labels
are too black and white for me. I don't think women should be making
the decision to have abortions as handily as they appear to be doing.
Neither do I think the government should be the one to prevent
abortions. To me abortion is immoral. I know that my thinking on this
issue is a direct result of experiencing the births of my four
children. This is simple my feelings on this.
As for candidates in NH, you have to base your vote on overall
positioning of the candidates who rum. That's all you can do.
For what it's worth, I believe it would be extremely difficult to
obtain an abortion in NH anyway. Many of the towns and cities have
statutes governing this. Even though it's legal, my OB at one point in
time while discussing a pregnancy and possible birth defects mentioned
this to me.
|
| 372.6 | a sorry state of affairs... | COBWEB::SWALKER | lean, green, and at the screen | Wed Sep 12 1990 11:46 | 53 |
|
.3> [...] it's obvious that some combination of the
.3> following statements is true:
.3>
.3> o Feminisim/Pro-Choice/Social Progressivism doesn't exist in NH
.3>
.3> o Feminists/Pro-Choicers/Social Progressives don't vote in NH
.3>
.3>
.3> Please, don't anyone bother to flame me, the vote speaks for itself.
No flames here; I've often had the same thought myself. Actually,
I think they DO vote... just not in the Republican primary (myself
aside, I guess). And, as we know, the odds are stacked HEAVILY
against a Democrat winning a NH general election. But until there
are appropriate choices on the Republican side (with support from
both those who vote pro-choice and those who vote their pocketbooks),
they're not going to be able to defeat the ultra-conservatives. So
we have this polarization of ultra-right vs. ultra-left.
Just look at the NH governor's race from 1988, or the one slated for
this year. Based on the lineup, I will predict that Judd Gregg
(incumbent conservative Republican who has a record of vetoing
pro-choice legislation) will win in a landslide over Joseph
Grandmaison (socially progressive Democrat who favors the institution
of new taxes, including a politically suicidal state income tax).
And, based on this, we'll get more Judd-Gregg-alikes running in the
next Republican primary, and winning in more landslides against more
liberal Democrats. But, in most races there isn't anything else ON
EITHER SIDE in the primaries and I am left with the knowledge that my
single vote (if I even bother to cast it in that race) is going to
perpetuate the status quo no matter what I do... because the right
kind of candidate just isn't there.
I'm voting for Grandmaison in the next election, although heaven
knows we don't have much (anything?) in common politically besides
being pro-choice (and on several issues we're in violent disagreement
-- not always about what's best for NH, but inevitably about what's
best for Sharon Walker, NH resident, who is who I vote for when I
go to the polls. But if I have to pay a 7% choice tax, I will).
I'm even considering campaigning for him.
.4> re .2 Sorry, Sharon, you can't change it from the top down.
.4> The upper levels will change when they see their lower-level
.4> clones getting *beaten*.
How was I proposing changing it from the top down? I agree with
you, actually. And in any way I can contribute to the clones
being beaten, I will. But how can they get beaten when there is,
literally, NO ALTERNATIVE? *That's* the problem!
Sharon
|
| 372.7 | | COBWEB::SWALKER | lean, green, and at the screen | Wed Sep 12 1990 12:01 | 16 |
|
> I'm a NH resident, consider myself a feminist, and in all honesty
> cannot simply consider abortion as the "litmus test" of ANY candidate.
> There are other equally important things.
Do you have to be one or the other? No, of course not. It's
just that some of us don't feel that those other things are
equally important, just as many gun collectors feel that their
right to their hobby is more important than, say, catastrophic
health care or public kindergarten.
If you don't vote for yourself, no one else is going to do it
for you.
Sharon
|