Thursday, December 14, 2006

Must Read

Yeah, the Dollar Bill Jefferson Election thing. IN addition to the stuff you've already read about it, this piece over at YRHT still rates as a must read.

For those of you not interested in Louisiana politics, this one is still important because it goes over such related topics as national perception of local elections and how the decision not to vote affects the overall schematic.

This is especially true for followers of Georgia politics, as we were the ones who were associated for so long with one Cynthia McKinney, and we just saw how the Democratic Party of Georgia got hammered in part because of the way the big names on the ticket ran their campaigns.

(HT: Ashley.


Dante said...

This is about as "must read" as the directions on a bottle of shampoo. It has some interesting moments but the bulk of the piece has already been covered here. Here's a quick review:

Jefferson bad
Carter good
Jefferson Parish Voters bad
Orleans Parish voters bad but not by as much
Not voting bad
Brees/Norwood campaign ticket good
Brees/McAllister campaign ticket better
Public perception of Jefferson ousting > voting for candidate who most closely reflects your ideals
Jefferson == Devil
Jefferson == Devil
Jefferson == Devil

Did I miss anything?

Patrick Armstrong said...

Well, I think you missed a great deal, if that's all you got out of that post.

I was personally the most intrigued by the reasons given and described by the folks who chose not to vote for either candidate. Most especially because I know a few Georgia Democrats who, lacking Cathy Cox to vote for in the governor's race, chose instead not to vote. I know a few folks that couln't bring themselves to vote for Kerry, even though they desipsed Ol' Dubya. I'm always fascinated by that kind of a mindset, and this piece, I think, did a good job exploring that, or at least explored the frustration the "not voting is bad" crowd has with the "not voting for the lesser of two evils" crowd.

(And bottles of shampoo still have directions on them, so those directions must be important to someone, after all....)

patsbrother said...

[NOTE: I did not read the link, but it seems Patrick is fascinated with the way my brain works, so here goes.]

(I can't believe I'm making two Nader references in as many days, but) I don't like voting for the least worst.

While I did vote for Kerry in 2004 (because not great is far better than not good), I refused to vote for either major candidate in Georgia's last gubernatorial election. It appeared to me that Mark Tayler sought to distinguish himself from Gov. Perdue by moving farther to the right. What's the sense in that? I chose a third way: my vote went to my esteemed and venerable classmate Ms. S. Stephens, who likely does not meet age requirements for governor (if there are any) and who will not be in the country next semester.

Nowhere in the mumblings and murmurs of that election did I hear anything positive about either candidate (and I don't even watch TV!), other than Mark Taylor having something to do with the perpetuation of the HOPE scholarship. But really, a) how much can a Lt. Gov. do to advance anything, and b) the HOPE scholarship thankfully has become a bit of a sacred cow for being the immeasurable asset that it is to the State of Georgia. Thus, I declined to vote for "Two Strikes" Taylor as a thank you for not acting a fool in one rather easy situation.

Yes, I likely speak in ignorance on this whole sheebang, but I suppose Patrick is more intrigued with how voters (such as myself) actually operate rather than how we operate in a perfect vacuum.

And as for refusing to vote for the least worst in general, in cases such as the Presidency and the Governorship, I'd rather allow a lacking incumbant a maximum of four more years than a lacking newcomer a minimum of four years to muck everything up.