Even though I write about politics every day here, I have given very little thought to the question of who I'll vote for next month. With no party affiliation and not particularly liking anyone, I find it enough of a pain to develop preferences that I've seriously considered not voting.
There are two ballot issues -- same-sex marriage and the death penalty -- that are designed to get out the vote and that I really do have very distinct preferences about, and that will probably push me get me to go over to the church. So, with the election coming up awfully soon, it's time to figure out what to do about the actual politicians who seek my support.
I'm looking at three Democratic incumbents: Governor Jim Doyle, Senator Herb Kohl, and Representative Tammy Baldwin. The corresponding Republican challengers are: Mark Green, Robert Lorge, and Dave Magnum.
Who should I vote for?
October 21, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
30 comments:
Well, you're just demonstrating how much easier it is to have a party affiliation. I have a residual affiliation to the Democratic party, and I can see how easy it was to get through elections by accepting whoever the party put up.
But you've got to admit the Republican party did an incredibly bad job of putting up attractive candidates to lure me over! They didn't even try to put up a viable candidate against Kohl (the richest man in the Senate).
Why not vote for the candidate with the least amount of wealth. That way the richer candidate will still have his/her money, and the least richest will have a good paying job. See, that was easy.
By the way, this west central WI voter will vote straight Republican. Not that I even like them, I'm just sick of the constant bashing of Repiblicans that I see on TV every single night.
WV: nmgqlgfl
That was really hard to type
none of the above
Repiblicans?
The iMac comment was funny!
You're a smart lady, Ann. Ignore the garbage floating through all the campaign ads and vote on the issues.
My guess is that in terms of policies, your politics still align more closely with the Democrats.
Also, remember you can split your ticket.
For example, I'm much more likely to vote for a qualified Democrat for national office than I have been since I was in my twenties, but my sense that the Democratic party in Wisconsin refuses to confront crime in Milwaukee and is uncomfortably close to both gambling interests and WEAC make me almost certain to vote for a Republican for Governor and State Attorney General.
I'll probably vote for Tammy and Lorge, the latter a protest vote against Kohl. Much as I'm lukewarm for Doyle, I just can't vote for Green. He tries to package himself as moderate. He fails.
None of the above is reserved for the AG race. What horrible choices!
I don't know enough about Wisconsin's candidates and issues to make any recommendations, but you sound more likely to vote in this post than was the case in our last exchange. Right on!
In any event, I enjoyed your excellent "No Exit" article in this morning's hard copy Wall Street Journal. You talk there as well about the Wisconsin's same-sex ballot measure. That's one issue that ought to get people to the polls, as you note in your post.
On judicial activism and abortion though, you say in the article that even if Roe were overturned "New political fights would spring up and produce a new set of cases that would plunge the courts into even more troublesome legal disputes. The sought after exit from 'the abortion umpiring business' [Scalia's phrase] would not take place. There is no exit." I know you're debating the future of judicial activism in the piece, but I wondered about your substantive position on Roe. Should we keep it? Did that case make good law? If not, should we worry about overturning it mainly because striking it down wouldn't resolve the issues? Couldn't the same be said about earlier cases subsequently overturned by the Court, like Plessy? Didn't some of the new political fights thereby engendered by that case work to further the progressive development of the law, and so striking down big landmarks like that might not be a bad thing? California's got an initiative to require parental notification for abortions on the ballot in November, so I guess the 1992 Casey decision didn't settle the matter of the right of minor to an abortion, and perhaps this is an example of the seeds for a "new political fight" to which you refer.
Your piece was not, unfortunately, up at OpinionJournal.com, in which case I might have hashed out some of these issues on my own page! Good job, in any case!
Burkeanreflections
"Not particularly liking anyone" is not an excuse. They are all politicians. Of course you don't like them. But it's still your civic duty (there's an old fashioned idea) to participate, even if you decide not to vote for any of the candidates for a particular office.
Here's a news flash: Politics is all about choosing the best from the available alternatives. It's an exercise in comparatives, not absolutes. You get to decide what the matrix of values is that determines "best" here. One of the candidates for each office is going to win, and it's inconceivable that the choice is in equipoise on whatever set of values you think is most important now. And no one ever said that participatory democracy is free or easy (name one thing worth having that is) even for those of us who don't run for anything. To avoid that obligation by saying that it's "enough of a pain to develop preferences that I've seriously considered not voting" is to verge dangerously close to Frivolous Dingbat syndrome. So, engage with reality, suck it up, and go vote. Just like your father told you to do decades ago.
Knowing nothing about Wisconsin, I can't offer any advice about the candidates. As for general policy positions, at the national level and on the issues that matter (to me, anyway) the Republicans have some definite policy positions; the Dems (for now, at least) prefer not to articulate anything beyond the "we'll do better" kind of platitudes. What will make me vote for the R team this go-around is that I think the Rs are serious about the Islamofascist threat and are convinced that the US (and Israel and the West generally) must confront and defeat it. In contrast, the D team thinks that the whole idea of an "Islamofascist threat" is just scare tactics by the R team, and that the only real problem here is the R team. (Your devoted friend "doyle" who comments here frequently captures that attitude and mindset to a tee.) The stakes are high, the issues are serious, and there comes a point where dithering and waffling won't do. The only thing required of you is to take a stand; the only act required is to vote for whomever reflects your stand. So do it, already, and encourage others to as well.
The R team has its problems, but at least they recognize the source and nature of the main challenge. So I think it's an easy choice, and will remain so for however long the main threat continues to be the Islamofascist threat and the Dems persist in their view that wishing it away is a sensible strategy.
Madison Man: Why are you protesting against Kohl?
Donald: I am in favor of keeping Roe v. Wade, because I think women do have a right to make their own decision whether to go through a pregnancy, and whatever attacks can be made on the reasoning of Roe as a matter of constitutional law, it is a longstanding precedent that there is not good enough reason to overrule.
DNR Mom: I'm the "consummate intellectual"? How do you figure that? I'm practical about politicians, not intellectual. I may be a little intellectual in making fun of them, but in the end, voting, I'm not tooo intellectual.
Follow de Toqueville's maxim and vote for the one who will do the least damage. He marveled at the American system of regular elections, because it was based on the knowledge that all humans are flawed and everyone, if left in office long enough, would screw things up.
Don't not vote for anyone. That's wasting your vote.
Throw your vote away. Vote for no one.
The difference is whether you wish to express apathy or dissatisfaction.
Some express their disappointment with the not voting option, but I think it is a perfectly acceptable choice if one finds both candidates uninspiring. I am faced with this dilemma in the Michigan governor's race. I most always vote republican, but I don't care for repub choice. The incumbant democrat has done little to earn my vote as this state is in economic despair and one of her more publicized plans was slapping some sunglasses on her face in a lame attempt to make Michigan cities "cool".
The republican once ran Amway, which is distasteful right off the bat. He also doesn't support the ballot initiative to end affirmative action, which I think is cowardly on his behalf.
With your ballot initiatives, I would be of more help, but you already know how you are voting. On those issues, I find myself in the minority within the republican party, since I voted against a gay marriage ban when it was on the ballot last time, and I oppose the death penalty.
I'd probably vote for Doyle and Kohl (I grew up in Wisconsin and follow the scene from a distance).
In general, I belive people should vote for whomever best represents their interests tempered by what one perceives to be the interests the people of the state. At least that's what I'm teaching my kids.
I'd never vote for a candidate because they would advance some national agenda or (i.e., attain or retain some majority). That's a relatively recent phenomenon as far as I'm concerned, along with the concept of voting against someone or something. Just color me old-fashioned.
I'm biased in favor of voting--or, at least, showing up to vote--as a duty. I was raised that way, my husband was raised that way, and we're raising our son that way.
(But others make strong arguments otherwise, and it's not something I care enough about in terms of the behavior of other people to hassle anyone else about his or her position.)
However, clearly, there are times when none of the available choices are good enough. I don't think "a duty to vote" translates necessarily into "pick one of these guys."
My preference, in that case, is the write-in--of someone who, symbolically at least, represents what I think the particular positions needs at a particular time.
You could call this the "I may be pissing in the wind, but at least I'm taking a piss" approach.
As a more rare fall-back, I've voted for those offices or with regard to initiative for which I could, and left blanks where necessary.
You could call this the "I may not piss everywhere, but at least I marked some of the territory" to show I was in the area.
Now, back to our regularly scheduled Saturday cleaning chores (guess which one I'm currently engaged in)?
vh: stoolunz
Ann;
Some questions you might ask yourself about the Governor's Race:
-Environment: Since the state legislature is going to continue to be Republican, which candidate is more likely to serve as a buffer against special interests that lobby to overule science based Decisions DNR decisions?
-Economy: Which candidate is more "Clintonian", generally holding the line on taxes (to the point of frustrating liberals) while not being dogmatic?
-Which candidate holds positions closer to yours on stem cell research, the death penalty, and the "defense of marriage" act?
Federally, I was rather sympathetic with what James Taranto wrote the other day:
It now seems within the realm of possibility that Democrats will take one or both houses of Congress in three weeks, even though they are campaigning on not much more than not being Republicans. But the Republicans are campaigning on not much more than not being Democrats. To our mind the Republicans have the better of this argument, but there is something to be said for punishing the party in power if its performance has been subpar.
But given that the Democrats are your incumbents... what do you think of their performance?
Who should I vote for?
I'd say "vote against all the incumbents", personally -- that's what I'm doing (if I bother to vote). The only exception for me is the Governator, who I like.
Nobody in Congress has been doing a good job, in my opinion.
I'm very ambivalent about Kohl because he does so very little, that I can see, for Wisconsin as a Senator. Total Mediocrity. So I'd vote against him for that. It seems like he's in the Senate just 'cause he was able to buy his way in. I guess he's better than Bob Kasten was, but that's not a very high standard.
On the other hand, the Republican Party has done an awful job supplying a credible candidate against him. So maybe the Republicans shouldn't be rewarded with my vote either. I'll have to look in to Green or Libertarian for Senate. The Greens are too looney for me, generally, though.
I'm not sure there's a huge difference between Magnum and Tammy -- but Tammy is not a white male, and I like sending non-white males to Congress, if only to give different perspectives.
I can't help but notice the nearly total lack of substantive argument about the 6 candidates I asked about. I'm mostly just getting generic stuff about the importance of voting or the reasons for party-based voting. I know I have Wisconsin readers. Give me some substance!
And with respect to the Doyle/Green race, spare me the "stem cells" issue that's being overused to distinguish the two.
Ed Bush said... "I enjoyed your takedown of Glenn Greenwald's turgid prose. Then elsewhere in your blog, you write, "Who should I vote for?" So I guess we're all sloppy writers now. Some are just sloppier than others."
False. I did that on purpose, after thinking it through. If you disagree with my style choice, I think you are wrong. Try to picture how dorky that heading would look the way you think is right. I bet the Language Log guys would agree with me.
Don't vote.
You'd still be making a statement.
Peace, Maxine
Abraham hit my point: Doyle is a fan of vote fraud (which is what you're guaranteed to get when you have same day voter registration and no photo ID requirement).
So if you care about honest elections, vote for Green.
of course, given the vote fraud that Doyle enabled by vetoing the photo ID law, it just may not matter how you vote.
Can't help you with the Congressional race, other than to say that I can't think of someone who would do a worse job of representing my personal interests than Baldwin does. (That, and Dave Magnum may have the manliest name this side of Dick Armey.)
As to the Governor's race, I honestly don't see the appeal of Doyle to anyone other than the most partisan on the left. The regulatory climate in this State under Doyle - combined with the relatively high tax burden - is making it increasingly more difficult to attract new businesses (and the high-paying jobs that come with those businesses).
It's a major concern to me, for a number of reasons. As a recent graduate of the UW Law School, I know how difficult it is to find a good legal job in this state. (We can't all work for the State, you know. ;)) Second, as someone working in private practice here in Wisconsin, the outward migration of business means that there are fewer and fewer people who need lawyers (and can afford to pay us).
While driving near my Parents' house this weekend, I couldn't help but notice a "Dump Doyle" sign attached to a dump truck outside a local Menard's store. Menard's and Harley Davidson are both being forced to consider moving additional facilities outside of this state due mainly to the Doyle administration. I don't know what age your son is - or if he even wants to stay in Wisconsin; but wouldn't it be nice for that to at least remain an option?
Add in the questionable political action that happened to favor significant donors to Doyle's campaigns (Substandard casino treaties, rigged state contract bidding, etc.) along with the manipulation of the State Elections Board, and the man looks even worse.
It's hard to get into the booth and vote for a guy when you need to use both hands just to plug your nose.
dfdf
I think the most important thing in the Gov. race is education funding and Doyle has made huge efforts to fight the Rep. efforts to slash support state funding for public education. If the Rep. in the legislature had their way, schools across the state would have been forced to make huge cuts, increase class sizes, layoff teachers, etc. Doyle has stood up for kids and families which helps the state's economy.
Sorry about the last post, that was a mistake.
The one thing I know for certain in this election cycle is that our current governor has earned a vote to whoever opposes him from me.
Doyle refuses to enact a state bill for no smoking in restaurants and taverns. Living in the Fox Valley as I do, I know how diverse the local ordinances are, and how totally unfair they are to their respective communties. The state restaurant and tavern leagues ASKED for a statewide law, in an effort to level the playing field for every city. Doyle said that the local laws were more important. As much as I am against taking away freedoms, I'm more against unfair laws and ordinances... Which we have now.
I'm also for the concealed carry law that Doyle will never allow to pass without him vetoing it first. It doesn't put guns into the hands of criminals, because criminals will carry them no matter what. I'll get a permit, and I'll bet that I hardly ever actually carry my gun, and I'll feel better knowing that the criminals don't know if I'm carrying it or not.
We also can't forget the wonderful gaming compacts & state contract issues, either. Yep, Doyle lost my vote almost immediately.
I'm not in your area for representative, so I can't offer anything on them.
I'll vote for Lorge because I believe, much like others have already stated, Kohl hasn't done much to make me want him there. Perhaps a fresh face will do some good. The Dems rail the rich Rep. elites... So what would we call Kohl? Maybe if he concentrates more on the Bucks he'll finally bring a title to Milwaukee.
It's a shame that there aren't more libertarians running. Ed Thompson did so much better than anyone would have guessed last time in his run for governor. We might see more people voting if we had a more diverse field to choose from.
Sorry, Ed. I'm actually right, and you're wrong. Deal with it.
Post a Comment