Bill Quick over at Daily Pundit posted a piece yesterday afternoon to tell us why.
Why?
By doing so, you send a message that can’t be mistaken or spun. It is a message that says:
“I am a Republican who wanted to vote for a conservative GOP candidate, but wasn’t able to do so. I can’t vote for a Democrat, but I can’t vote for any of the Republicans, either. So I’m writing in the name of the candidate I wish I could have voted for, because he is the kind of candidate I could support.”
Read the whole thing. A lot of us are thinking the same thing.
Entries (RSS)
January 27th, 2008 at 8:02 am
The problem with this idea is that write-in votes are not counted unless the candidate registered as such. In Idaho, it’s easier to register your displeasure by voting for Uncommitted in the Primary or Alan Keyes may be on the May ballot, too. In the general voting for a conservative third party would more effectively register your displeasure.
January 27th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
perhaps… that’s the dilemna, isn’t it? Will the GOP register third party votes as votes they could have had? I doubt it. Perot wasn’t taken seriously, cost Bush#1 an election, but here we are again, with the same old junk choices. And too often, the third party offerings have “baggage” that many conservatives don’t care to give any additional weight. I’m thinking legalizing drugs, abolishing the CIA FBI IRS, and any number of out-of-the-mainstream conspiracy theories… stuff that doesn’t attract average conservatives, much less, the general public.
Strong defense, lower taxes, increased personal liberty and responsibility, tight borders, fiscal restraint… seems pretty simple, and pretty obvious to me. Even when I talk to my more liberal friends we can all agree on those things. We don’t talk about universal health care, amnesty, isolation as a foreign policy, nor do we argue about race or gender issues. The Dems are pandering to their more activist members, and the Rs are completely ignoring theirs.
One of the problems I’m seeing here in the primaries is the “how do we win” mentality, on both sides. When your candidate and platform is determined by “how we win” and not by “what is right for the country”, you will continue to alienate large chunks of the electorate and we’ll continue having less than 50% turnouts. But then, that’s what the wonks want, isn’t it?
Writing in the name of the candidate we would have preferred makes some sense, because ultimately, the party will hear about it whether the vote “counts” or not. They know what every ballot has on it. Votes given to the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party are easily dismissed by the head mucks down at elephant headquarters as just another bunch of wacko voters… I understand Bill Quick’s suggestion as a message that needs to be heard by the party.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Write-in is all we have left during this election. Unless a change is made removing the control of the elites in the MSM many in America will start thinking the time has come for the second ammendment option to be laid on the bargaining table.
There is one step between the two I am dedicated to: a take-over of the Anarchist-led Libartarian party by dedicated Libartarians from both Republican and Democrat parties. The current Libartarian party has an anarchist platform, even after a large bit of reformation in the last two years. It is PRIME for a take-over.
Before the Idaho types get their weapons out the rest of us need to at least try a third party threat to the current set of wealthy elites ruining our country.
We have two viable paths, a write-in for this election, a third party for the next.
The AM talk show host are the prime place to organise a write-in campaign. If Thompson doesnt want the write-ins, Newt might.
February 4th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
I have to laugh at all of the comparisons to JFK they’re trying to make with Obama. JFK would NOT endorse Obama today, and it is arguable that he’d even be a Democrat. But the MSM has to keep the hype/dream alive… even though the party has lurched so far to the left Democrats from the last generation wouldn’t recognize it. Mr Reagan was able to change parties when the Dems moved away from him. I wish there were someplace for us to go today, now that the GOP has also lurched to the left.
I agree with you about the current 3rd parties. Their, uh, lack of discretion shall we say, has left them too marginalized to be a factor. But I would tend to think taking over the GOP is a better strategy… name recognition and all that
The molon labe option is way down the road. We aren’t there yet. But the next 4 to 8 years look to be uncomfortable for patriots and freedom loving folk of all persuasions.